THE   UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


•    *      ^ 

>-*-v 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

U.  of  I.  Library 


APR  13 '36 

MAR. -9 '37 

JAN  -.j 

DEC -3 
fiPfl  1 7  j- 


,lilN  -;{ 
DEC  -4  19 

BPR  10 

MflY  -4  !J 
MBY  1«» 


9 


939 


tiv,  1.7 


5»(5 


fllL  J  y 

135^  ;CT  / 
OCT' 


5* 


•!« 


969 


%25 

01 


9324-S 


THE   EIGHT   CHAPTERS   OF   MAIMONIDES 
ON  ETHICS 

SHEMONAH  PEEAKIM 


COLUMBIA 

UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

SALES   AGENTS 

NEW   YORK: 

LEMCKE  &   BUECHNER 
30-32  WEST  BTTH  STREET 

LONDON : 

HENRY  FROWDE 
AMEN  CORNER,  E.G. 

TORONTO : 

HENRY  FROWDE 

25  RICHMOND  ST.,  W. 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY  ORIENTAL  STUDIES 
VOL.  VII. 


THE 

EIGHT  CHAPTERS  OF  MAIMONIDES 
ON  ETHICS 

(SHEMONAH  PERAKIM) 
A  PSYCHOLOGICAL  AND  ETHICAL  TREATISE 


EDITED,   ANNOTATED,   AND   TRANSLATED 
WITH    AN    INTRODUCTION 


BY 


JOSEPH   I.   GORFINKLE,  PH.D. 

RABBI   OF    SINAI    TEMPLE,   MT.   VERNON,   N.Y. 


Neto 

COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 
1912 

All  rights  reserved 


\fel 


NOTE 

THE  Hebrew  translation  of  the  Shemonah  Perakim  of  Mai- 
monides,  despite  its  importance  in  the  history  of  Jewish  ethics 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  has  never  been  presented  in  a  critical 
edition.  This  Dr.  Gorfinkle  has  done  in  the  present  volume 
with  acumen  and  with  much  diligence.  To  this  purpose,  he 
has  examined  carefully  a  number  of  manuscripts  and  printed 
editions.  He  has  also  compared  the  Arabic  original  through- 
out, and  has  given  in  the  notes  his  reasons  for  accepting  or 
rejecting  certain  readings.  In  order  that  the  work  may  be 
accessible  to  readers  who  do  not  understand  Hebrew,  an  English 
translation  has  been  added. 

RICHARD  GOTTHEIL. 
MAT,  1912. 


:38873 


TO 
THE  SACRED  MEMORY 

OF 
MY   FATHER 


PREFACE 

IT  was  while  in  attendance  at  the  Hebrew  Union  College,  and 
under  the  able  tuition  of  my  friend  and  teacher,  Dr.  Henry 
Malter,  now  of  Dropsie  College,  that  I  became  acquainted  with 
the  masterpieces  of  Jewish  philosophy,  and  among  them  the 
Shemonah  Perakim  of  Maimonides.  Remembering  the  corrupt 
condition  of  the  text  of  the  ordinary  editions  of  the  Perakim, 
and  of  that  in  the  Mishnah  and  the  Talmud  containing  Maimo- 
nides' Commentary  on  the  Mishnah,  and  recollecting  the  fre- 
quency with  which  it  was  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the 
Arabic  original  in  order  to  render  the  text  intelligible,  when 
casting  about  for  a  subject  for  a  dissertation,  I  thought  I  could 
do  no  better  than  endeavor  to  reconstruct  the  Hebrew  text  as 
it  came  from  the  pen  of  of  the  translator,  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon. 

In  this  rather  ambitious  attempt,  I  was  guided  throughout 
by  Dr.  Richard  Gottheil,  to  whom  my  sincere  thanks  are  due 
for  his  constant  interest  and  for  his  invaluable  suggestions. 
I  wish  especially  to  thank  Dr.  Malter  for  his  assistance  in  the 
Arabic  and  for  his  many  excellent  suggestions.  I  also  take  this 
opportunity  of  expressing  my  gratitude  to  Dr.  Alexander  Marx 
for  his  uniform  kindness  in  allowing  me  to  use  manuscripts 
and  books  of  the  library  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary. 
To  Mr.  Simeon  Leventall,  I  am  also  grateful  for  his  assistance 
in  correcting  the  proofs  of  the  translation  and  notes. 

There  has  been  a  delay  of  two  years  in  the  publishing  of  this 
book  owing  to  the  fact  that  originally  it  was  not  intended  to 
include  a  translation  of  the  Perakim  and  notes,  and  because  a 
greater  part  of  the  book  had  to  be  set  up  in  Europe. 

ix 


x  PREFACE 

It  is  with  a  feeling  of  trepidation  that  I  send  into  the  world 
this,  my  first  work,  fully  realizing  its  many  shortcomings.  I 
can  only  hope  that  the  kind  reader  will  be  so  engrossed  in  these 
interesting  Chapters  of  the  master,  Maimonides,  and  will  find 
their  teachings  so  captivating,  that  he  will  overlook  the  failings 
of  the  novice  who  presents  them  to  him. 

G. 

WlNTHROP,  MA88., 

AUGUST,  1912. 


CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION  PAGK 

I.    THE  OBJECT  OF  MAIMONIDES'  WRITINGS.    THE  COMMENTARY 

ON  THE  MlSHNAH.      THE    SHEMONAH  PERAKIM        .  .  1 

II.     A.   MAIMONIDES' ETHICAL  WRITINGS  —  DEFINITION  OP  ETHICS        7 

B.  NAME,  DATE,  DESCRIPTION,  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  SHEMO- 

NAH PERAKIM    .        .        .       ,       .       .       .       .        .        9 

C.  SAMUEL  IBN  TIBBON  AS  A  TRANSLATOR  —  His  TRANSLA- 

TION OF  THE  SHEMONAH  PERAKIM 19 

D.  DESCRIPTION    OF    COLLATED    MATERIAL  —  GENERAL    RE- 

MARKS ON  THE  TEXT 24 

E.  MANUSCRIPTS  —  EDITIONS  —  TRANSLATIONS  —  COMMENTA- 

RIES        27 

THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS  —  TRANSLATION 

FOREWORD 34 

CHAPTER  I  —  Concerning  the  Human  Soul  and  its  Faculties       .      37 
CHAPTER  IT  —  Concerning  the  Transgressions  of   the  Faculties 
of  the  Soul,  and  the  Designation  of  those  Faculties  which 
are  the  Seat  of  the  Virtues  and  Vices .         .         .         .         .47 
CHAPTER  III  —  Concerning  the  Diseases  of  the  Soul   ...       51 
CHAPTER  IV  —  Concerning  the  Cure  of  the  Diseases  of  the  Soul       54 
CHAPTER  V  —  Concerning  the  Application  of  Man's  Psychic  Fac- 
ulties towards  the  Attainment  of  a  Single  Goal  ...       69 
CHAPTER  VI  —  Concerning  the  Difference  between  the  Saintly 
or  Temperamentally  Ethical  Man  and  him  who  Subdues 

his  Passions  and  has  Self-restraint 75 

CHAPTER  VII  —  Concerning  the  Barrier  between  God  and  Man 

and  its  Signification 79 

CHAPTER  VIII  —  Concerning  the  Natural  Disposition  of  Man     .       85 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURAL  PASSAGES 103 

INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  TALMUD 104 

CRITICAL  TEXT  AND  NOTES  OF  THE  SHEMONAII  PERAKIM      .        .  5-55 

xi 


ABBREVIATIONS   AND   SIGNS 

Abot Pirke  A  lot,  ed.  Strack,  Berlin,  1888. 

Br British  Museum  Ms.     See  p.  24. 

Ma Mahzor.    See  p.  24. 

Mi First  edition  of  Mishnah.     See  p.  25. 

So Soncino  edition  of  Abot.     See  p.  25. 

M Maimonides. 

Eth.  NIC.        .     .     .     Aristotle's  Nichomachean  Ethics,  ed.  Lewes. 

I.T Ibn  Tibbon. 

Poc Pococke's  Porta  Mosis,  Arabic  or  Latin. 

Ro Rosin's  Ethik  des  Maimonides,  1876. 

Wo Wolff,  Musa  Maimuni's  Adit  Capitel,  1903. 

Ar Arabic  text  as  presented  in  Wolff  or  Pococke. 

Catal.  Bodl.    .     .     .     Steinschneider's    Catalogus    Librorum   Hebraeorum    in 

Bibliotheca  Bodleiana. 

Jew.  Lit Steinschneider's  Jewish  Literature. 

HUb Steinschneider's  Hebraische  Uebersetzungen. 

Arab.  Lit Steinschneider's  Die  Arab.  Literatur  der  Juden. 

AGPh Archiv  fur  Geschichte  der  Philosophic  (Stein). 

AZDJ.       ....     Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums. 

JE The  Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 

JQR The  Jewish  Quarterly  Review. 

Moses  ben  Maimon,  I.  Memorial  Volume,  Moses  ben  Maimon,  Sein  Leben,  Seine 

Werke  und  Sein  Einftuss,  Volume  I,  Leipzig,  1908. 

ZPTiKr Zeitschrift  fur  Philosophic  und  philosophisch?  Kritik. 

ZDMG Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  morgenldndischen  Gessellschaft. 

+ Denotes  that  the  word  or  words  following  it  are  found 

only  in  sources  designated.     IT  +  denotes  that  what 

follows  is  added  by  Ibn  Tibbon  to  the  original. 
> Indicates  that  the  word  or  words  following  are  not 

found  in  the  text  designated. 

Words  in  small  type  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  those  enclosed  in  brackets  in 
the  English,  are  glosses  by  Ibn  Tibbon. 

xii 


THE  OBJECT  OF  MAIMONIDES'  WORKS.     THE  COMMENTARY 
ON   THE  MISHNAH.      THE   SHEMONAH  PER  A  KIM 

DURING  the  lifetime  of  Maimonides,  there  were  many  who 
bitterly  assailed  him,  declaring  that  his  Talmudical  knowledge 
was  faulty,  that  his  writings  were  un-Jewish,  that  he  sought  to 
introduce  strange  elements  into  Judaism,  and  that  he  desired 
his  works  to  supersede  the  Talmud.1  Some  of  Maimonides' 
opponents  were  animated  by  a  spirit  of  true  criticism,  but  other 
attacks  made  upon  him  were  partly  due  to  personal  feelings  of 
envy.2  The  opposition  continued  for  a  while  after  Maimonides' 
death,  but  it  was  not  long  before  the  true  character  of  this  mas- 
ter's works  became  universally  recognized.  The  feeling,  minus 
the  personal  element,  that  Maimonides  wished  to  have  his 
works  take  the  place  of  the  Talmud,  has,  however,  persisted 
to  this  day.  Thus,  we  find  Luzzatto3  stating  that  Maimonides 
wrote  his  Mishneh  Torah  in  order  to  do  away  with  the  study 
of  the  Babylonian  Talmud.  Beer,  supporting  the  same  opinion, 
maintains  that  Maimonides  saw  the  disadvantages  of  the  study 
of  the  Talmud,  was  aware  of  the  uselessness  of  some  of  its 
parts,  and  considered  its  extended  study  a  waste  of  time.4  As 
proof  of  this  he  quotes  from  the  introduction  to  the  Mishneh 

1  Moses  Maimonides  (in  Arabic,  Ibu  'Imrdn  Musa  ibn  Maimun  ibn  'Obaid 
Allah}  was  born  at  Cordova,  March  30,  1135  ;  in  1165  he  accompanied  his 
father  to  Africa  and  then  to  Palestine  ;  in  1166  he  repaired  to  Egypt,  and 
settled  in  Fustat,  near  Cairo  ;  he  died  Dec.  13,  1204.  On  the  pronunciation 
of  jia'n,  see  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften  (1876),  III,  Moses  ben  Maimon, 
p.  70,  note  1  ;  Gratz,  VI8,  p.  262,  n.  1 ;  Catal.  Sodl.,  1861  ff.  ;  Arab.  Lit.,  199  ff. 
On  his  life  and  works,  see  Catal.  Sodl.,  1861  ff.  ;  Gratz,  VI3,  pp.  261-326  ;  also 
Yellin  and  Abrahams,  Maimonides  (Philadelphia,  1903)  ;  I.  Broyde",  </!?,  IX,  art., 
Moses  ben  Maimon  ;  etc.  2  On  the  opposition  to  Maimonides'  works,  see  Jew. 
Lit.,  pp.  85-92.  3  In  Kerem  Hemed,  III,  p.  67.  *  Leben  und  Wirken  des 
Rabbi  Moses  ben  Maimon  (Prague,  1834),  pp.  6,  15,  16. 

B  1 


2  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

Torali  the  famous  sentence,  "  I  have  named  this  work  Mishneh 
Torah  for  the  reason  that  if  any  one  has  read  the  Torah  and 
then  this  work,  he  would  know  the  Biblical  and  oral  law  with- 
out having  to  read  any  other  book."  Geiger 1  maintains  that 
Maimonides'  object  was  merely  to  shorten  the  study  of  the 
Talmud. 

There  are  those,  however,  who  take  exception  to  this  view. 
Rosin 2  says,  "  From  the  very  beginning  the  Talmud  alone  was 
the  object  of  his  study."  Worldly  knowledge  and  philosophy 
were  merely  used  by  Maimonides  as  instruments  for  explaining 
and  glorifying  the  divine  teaching.  He  considered  the  rabbis 
to  be  second  only  in  rank  and  greatness  to  the  prophets,  and 
held  their  writings  in  equally  high  esteem.  On  the  face  of  it, 
the  quotation  cited  from  the  Mishneh  Torah  would  seem  to 
prove  the  assertion  made  above,  but  this  passage  may  be  in- 
terpreted to  prove  exactly  the  opposite ;  that  far  from  being 
his  object  to  discourage  the  study  of  the  Talmud,  he  wished 
to  spread  its  knowledge  among  those  who  for  any  reason  were 
unable  to  have  access  to  it,  or  who  could  not  devote  sufficient 
time  to  master  it.  "It  is  a  gross  injustice  often  done  to  Mai- 
monides," says  I.  Friedlaender,  "  to  accuse  him  of  having  the 
intention  to  supersede  the  Talmud  entirely.  .  .  .  He  consid- 
ered the  Talmud  as  a  most  worthy  object  of  study,  but  only 
for  scholars.  The  people,  however,  are  not  scholars  and  can- 
not devote  the  whole  of  life  to  learning.  For  the  mass  of 
people  alone  he  intended  to  supersede  the  Talmud  by  a  com- 
prehensive extract  from  it."  Ziemlich,  finally,  asserts  that 
Maimonides  did  not  desire  to  put  an  end  to  the  study  of  the 
Talmud,  but  rather  to  cast  it  into  scientific  form.3 

Although  this  decided  difference  of  opinion  as  to  Maimonides' 
attitude  towards  the  Talmud  still  exists,  all,  however,  agree 

1  Moses  ben  Maimon,  p.  67  ;  p.  83,  n.  33.  2  Ethik,  p.  30,  "Von  Hause 
aus  sei  der  Talmud  allein  Gegenstand  seines  Studiums  gewesen."  8  I.  Fried- 
laender, Moses  Maimonides,  in  New  Era  Illustrated  Magazine,  January,  1905, 
Reprint  (New  York,  1905),  pp.  34-35  ;  Bernard  Ziemlich,  Plan  und  Anlage  des 
Mischne  Torah,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  p.  259  ;  see  also  M.  Friedlander,  Guide, 
In  trod.,  pp.  xix,  xxi. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

that  his  main  object  was  to  harmonize  Jewish  traditional  belief 
with  the  current  Aristotelian  philosophy.1  For  this  work 
Maimonides  was  admirably  equipped  ;  his  ability  as  a  systema- 
tizer  was  most  remarkable,  and  not  only  had  he  a  profound 
knowledge  of  Jewish  law  and  lore,  but  was  so  deep  a  student 
of  philosophy  and  the  sciences  that  his  works  have  since 
exercised  considerable  influence  even  outside  the  domains  of 
Judaism.2  His  chapters,  for  instance,  in  the  Moreh  on  the 
Mutakallimun  have  become  the  main  source  for  the  history  and 
knowledge  of  the  Kaldm.3 

The  most  important  of  his  works  which  have  had  a  profound 
influence  upon  Judaism  are  his  Commentary  on  the  MisTinah 
(••Wan  tZnTS),  the  Mishneh  Torah  (mm  JTOfc)  or  Yad  ha- 
HazaTcah  (HpTHn  T),  and  the  G-uide  for  the  Perplexed 


Ttie  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah?  Maimonides'  first  work  of 
importance,  written  in  Arabic,5  was  begun  at  the  age  of  twenty  - 

1  Munk,  Guide,  Vol.  I,  Preface,  p.  1  ;  Beer,  Rabbi  Moses  ben  Maimon,  pp.  4 
and  12;  Arab.  Lit.,  pp.  203-204;  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  30;  Gratz,  VI8,  pp.  275, 
307  ;  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  Introd.,  p.  ix  ;  M.  Friedlander,  Guide,  Introd.,  p.  xxiv. 
2  Joel,  Verhaltniss  Alb.  d.  Gr.  zu  Moses  Maimonides  (Breslau,  1863)  ;  Etwas 
iiber  den  Einfluss  der  jiidischen  Philosophic  auf  die  christliche  Scholastik 
(FrankeVs  Monatsschr.,  IX,  pp.  205-217)  ;  Jaraczewski,  Die  Ethik  des  M.,  etc., 
in  ZPhKr.,  XLVI,pp.  5-24  ;  Guttmann,  Das  Verhaltniss  des  Thomas  v.  Aquino 
zur  jud.  Literatur  (Gottingen,  1891)  ;  Die  Scholastik  des  13  Jahrh.  in  ihren 
Beziehungen  zur  jud.  Litteratur  (Breslau,  1902)  ;  D.  Kaufmann,  Der  Fiihrer 
Maimunfs  in  der  Weltlitteratur,  AGPh.,  XI,  p.  335  ff.  ;  Richter,  Geschichte  der 
christlichen  Philosophie,  Vol.  I,  p.  610  ff.  ;  Ueberweg,  Hist,  of  Phil.  (1885), 
Vol.  I,  p.  428  ;  Weber,  Hist,  of  Phil.  (1895),  p.  210,  n.  2  ;  Jacob  Guttmann,  Der 
Einfluss  der  maimonidischen  Philosophie  auf  das  christliche  Abendland,  in  Moses 
ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  135-230  ;  Philip  Bloch,  Charakteristik  und  Inhaltsangabe 
des  Moreh  Nebuchim,  ib.,  p.  41,  n.  1.  8  Munk,  Melanges,  p.  323;  HUb., 
p.  415  ;  M.  Guttmann,  Das  religionsphil.  System  der  Mutakallimun  nach 
d.  Berichte  Maimon  (Leipzig,  1885)  ;  D.  Kaufmann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  339-340. 
4  The  Arabic  title  is  }toD?N  asro  (iiNon  IBD,  Book  of  Illumination),  which, 
however,  as  Steinschneider  (Arab.  Lit.,  p.  200)  and  Geiger  (Moses  ben  Maimon, 
p.  82,  n.  31)  maintain,  hardly  originated  with  Maimonides.  5  M.  wrote  all  of 
his  works,  with  the  exception  of  the  Mishneh  Torah  and  a  number  of  letters, 
in  Arabic,  but  with  Hebrew  characters,  as  Arabic  was  the  language  used  by 
the  Jews  living  under  Islam.  On  his  objection  to  having  the  Moreh  copied  in 
other  than  Hebrew  characters,  see  Munk,  Notice  sur  Joseph  ben  Jehouda  (Paris, 


4  THE   ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

three  (1158),  in  Spain,  and  was  completed  at  the  age  of  thirty- 
three  l  (1168),  after  he  had  taken  up  his  residence  in  Egypt. 
In  this  Talinudic  work  of  his  early  manhood,  Maimonides 
scarcely  had  a  predecessor.2  Though  one  of  his  earliest  works, 
and  in  spite  of  the  difficulties  in  writing  it  during  years  of 
wandering  and  seeking  a  secure  home,  with  no  books  accessible, 
the  Commentary  is  a  marvel  of  lucidity,  masterful  knowledge, 
and  comprehensiveness.  Gratz  attributes  its  existence  to  the 
author's  striving  for  "clearness,  method,  and  symmetry."2* 
The  fact  that  it  is  so  often  referred  to  in  his  later  writings 
testifies  that  at  a  very  early  date  Maimonides  had  outlined 
for  himself  a  thorough  philosophical  system  and  a  literary 
scheme  from  which  he  subsequently  deviated  only  slightly.3 
Most  of  the  theories  and  principles  established  in  the  Com- 
mentary were  retained  in  the  Mishneh  Torah.* 

1842),  p.  27,  n.  1.  On  the  Arabic  language  of  Maimonides  and  his  style,  see 
I.  Friedlaender,  Sprachgebrauch  des  Maimonides  (Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1902),  Intro- 
duction ;  and  by  the  same  author,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  the  articles,  Die  ara- 
bische  Sprache  des  Maimonides,  pp.  421-428,  and  Der  Stil  des  Maimonides,  pp. 
429-438 ;  also  his  short  account  in  Selections  from  the  Arabic  Writings  of 
Maimonides  (Semitic  Study  Series^  No.  XII,  edited  by  Gottheil  and  Jastrow, 
Leiden,  1909),  In  trod.,  pp.  xiv-xxiii. 

1  See  infra,  p.  10,  n.  1.  2  Geiger,  Moses  ben  Maimon,  p.  59  ;  Harkavy,  in 
Hebrew  ed.  of  Gratz,  IV,  Appendix,  p.  52.  2a  Gratz,  VI3,  pp.  266  and  274. 
8  In  the  Moreh,  which  appeared  at  least  twenty-five  years  after  the  Com.  on  the 
Mishnah,  there  are  twelve  or  more  references  to  the  latter,  four  of  which  are  to 
the  Perakim.  See  Moreh,  I,  39  ;  III,  35  (twice),  48.  Scheyer,  in  Das  psycho lo- 
gteche  System  des  Maimonides  (Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1845),  which  he  designated 
as  an  introduction  to  the  Moreh,  draws  largely  from  the  Perakim,  and  constantly 
refers  to  them  in  the  notes.  See  especially  Chaps.  I,  II,  and  IV.  Munk,  in  the 
notes  in  his  Guide,  refers  a  number  of  times  to  the  Mish.  Com.,  many  of  these 
being  to  the  Perakim.  In  Vol.  I,  p.  210,  n.  1,  he  quotes  at  length  from  Pera- 
l-im I  on  the  rational  faculty,  and  on  p.  232,  n.  1,  from  Perakim  VIII  on  the  at- 
tributes of  God.  Other  references  are  found  in  Vol.  I,  p.  125,  n.  2,  to  Perakim 
II  (the  classification  of  the  virtues)  ;  p.  286,  n.  3,  to  Perakim  VIII  (miracles)  ; 
p.  355,  n.  1,  to  Perakim  I  (the  faculties)  ;  p.  400,  n.  2,  to  Perakim  I  (the  theory 
of  imagination  of  the  Mutakallimun)  ;  etc.  4  Ziemlich,  Plan  und  Anlage  des 
Mischne  Thora,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  p.  305,  "Die  ira  M.  K.  festgestellten 
Resultate  hat  er  zum  grossen  Teile  in  den  M.  T.  aufgenommen. "  See  also 
authorities  cited  by  Ziemlich.  On  the  contradictions  of  the  Mishnah  Com- 
mentary and  the  Mishneh  Torah,  see  Derenbourg,  in  Zunz's  Jubelschrift  (Berlin, 
1884),  Die  Uebersetsungen  des  Mischnah  Commentars  des  Maimonides. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

The  greater  part  of  the  Commentary  was  not  translated  into 
Hebrew  until  after  his  death.  The  general  introduction  to  this 
work  and  parts  of  the  order  Zeraim  were  translated  by  Jehudah 
al-Harizi  (1194)  ;  Moed  by  Joseph  ibn  al-Fawwal  ;  NasTiim  by 
Jakob  ibn  Abbas  ;  Nezikin  by  Salomon  b.  Josef  ibn  Ya'kub  ; 
KodosJiim  by  Nathanel  ibn  Almoli  (or  Almali)  ;  and  Tohorot 
by  an  anonymous  translator.1  The  commentary  on  Sanhedrin, 
Chapter  X,  was  translated  probably  by  Al-Harizi,  and  also  by 
Samuel  ibn  Tibbon. 

In  commenting  on  the  tractate  Abot,  Maimonides  had  abun- 
dant opportunity  to  make  use  of  his  knowledge  of  Greek 
philosophy  and  particularly  of  Aristotelian  ethics.  To  this 
tractate  he  prefixed  an  introduction  of  eight  chapters,  out- 
lining in  a  general  way  a  system  of  ethics  based  mainly  on 
Aristotle's  Nichomachean  Ethics?  which  Maimonides  harmonized 
with  rabbinical  teachings.  This  introduction  constitutes  the 
most  remarkable  instance  in  medieval  ethical  literature  of  the 
harmonious  welding  of  Jewish  religious  belief  and  tradition 
with  Greek  philosophy. 

For  the  rendering  into  Hebrew  of  the  Commentary  on  Abot 
and  its  introduction  commonly  called  Dp^lS  !"I31DE7  (The  Eight 


1  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  translators  and  translations  of  the  Com- 
mentary on  the  Mishnah,  see  HUb.,  pp.  923-926;  Arab.  Lit.,  pp.  201-202. 
2  To  M.,  Aristotle  was  the  "chief  of  philosophers."  Cf.  Munk,  Guide,  I, 
Chap.  V,  p.  46,  and  n.  1.  See  also  Moreh,  II,  17,  19,  24.  He  considered  him  to 
be  almost  on  a  plane  with  the  prophets.  See  M.'s  Letter  to  Ibn  Tibbon,  Kobez 
II.  M.  refers  to  the  Nichomachean  Ethics  in  Moreh,  II,  36,  and  in  III,  49 
(twice).  On  his  dependence  upon  Eth.  Nic.,  see  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  6,  et  al.  M., 
however,  does  not  slavishly  follow  Aristotle,  and  speaks  disparagingly  of  those 
"who  believe  that  they  are  philosophers,"  but  who  consider  "it  wrong  to  differ 
from  Aristotle,  or  to  think  that  he  was  ignorant  or  mistaken  in  anything" 
(Moreh,  II,  15).  In  regard  to  Aristotle's  theory  of  creation,  he  speaks  of  the 
absurdities  implied  in  it  (t'ft.,  II,  18,  end).  See  A.  Wolf  in  Aspects  of  the  Hebrew 
Genius,  London,  1910,  pp.  141-142.  On  M.  's  departure  in  the  Perakim  from 
the  Aristotelian  system,  see  Jaraczewski,  ZPliKr.,  XLVI,  pp.  12-13,  14-15, 
and  16.  On  M.'s  dependence  upon  Aristotle,  see  M.  Joel,  Die  Eeligions-philos- 
ophie  des  Mose  ben  Maimon  (Breslau,  1859)  ;  Scheyer,  Das  psychol.  System 
des  Maimonides  ;  Rosin,  Ethik  ;  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel  ;  Yellin  and  Abrahams, 
Maimonides  ;  Cohen,  Charakteristik  der  Ethik  des  Maimunis,  in  Moses  ben  Mai- 
mon, I,  all  en  passim  ;  and  Ludwig  Stein  in  JE,  II,  pp.  47,  48-49. 


6  THE  ETHICS   OF  MAIMONIDES 

Chapters),  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon,  who  was  at  work  on  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Moreh,  was  eminently  fitted.  The  Shemonah 
Perakim  have  always  been  widely  read  among  the  Jews  and 
students  of  the  philosophy  of  Maimonides  on  account  of  their 
simplicity  of  style  and  subject  matter,  and  no  less  on  account 
of  their  accessibility,  being  found  in  all  editions  of  the  Mishnah 
and  Talmud 1  that  contain  Maimonides'  commentary,  in  a  num- 
ber of  Mahzorim?  especially  of  the  Roman  and  Greek  ritual, 
and  also  in  various  separate  editions.3  Their  popularity  is 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  they  have  been  translated  into  Latin, 
French,  Dutch,  English,  and  many  times  into  German.4 

An  examination,  however,  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Perakim 
in  the  editions  of  the  Mishnah  and  the  Talmud,  in  the  Mahzorim, 
and  the  many  separate  publications,  at  once  shows  that  no  two 
agree,  and  that  each  is  in  many  instances  in  a  corrupt  state.  A 
like  examination  of  the  manuscript  sources  bears  the  same  result. 
Again,  if  any  individual  text,  even  that  of  the  best  manuscript, 
be  placed  beside  the  original  Arabic  in  Pococke's  Porta  Mosis  5 
or  Wolff's  Acht  Capitel,  one  would  find  many  divergences.  It 
may  be  safely  stated  that  there  is  not  in  existence  to-day,  in  any 
form,  a  text  of  the  Shemonah  Perakim  which  in  its  entirety  is  a 
faithful  reproduction  of  the  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon.  By  a  select- 
ive process  based  on  a  collation  of  the  best  texts,  with  the  Arabic 
as  a  constant  guide,  it  is  possible,  however,  to  reconstruct  the 
Shemonah  Perakim,  so  that  almost  every  corrupt  reading  can  be 
rectified.  The  purpose  of  this  work  is  to  restore  and  elucidate 
linguistically  the  text  of  Ibn  Tibbon  as  far  as  possible,  and  by 
a  translation  make  it  accessible  to  readers  of  English. 

As  this  is  mainly  a  textual  work,  its  aim  is  not  to  treat  with 
any  degree  of  detail  Maimonides'  ethics,  its  sources,  Jewish  or 
Greek,  and  its  place  in  Jewish  philosophy,  all  of  which  has 
been  admirably  done  by  Rosin  in  his  Eihik.  But,  in  order  to 
obtain  a  more  complete  knowledge  of  the  Perakim  and  the 
theories  laid  down  therein,  the  editor  deems  it  well  to  mention 
and  describe  Maimonides'  other  ethical  writings,  the  place  of 

1  See  pp.  25  and  31.  2  See  pp.  24-25,  29-30,  and  31.  3  See  pp.  31  and  32. 
4  See  pp.  32  and  33.  6  See  p.  27. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

ethics  in  his  philosophical  system,  and  what  ethics  meant  to 
him.  The  name  and  the  date  of  the  original  composition  of 
the  Perakim,  as  well  as  that  of  its  translation  by  Ibn  Tibbon, 
will  be  discussed.  The  relation  of  the  Perakim  to  Maimoni- 
des'  other  works  will  be  taken  up,  followed  by  a  characteriza- 
tion and  summary  of  their  contents.  A  brief  account  of  the 
style  and  character  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  translations  in  general, 
and  as  portrayed  in  the  Perakim,  will  also  be  given.  There  is 
also  included  a  list  of  manuscripts,  editions,  commentaries,  and 
translations. 

II 

A.     MAIMONIDES'   ETHICAL  WRITINGS  —  DEFINITION   OF 

ETHICS 

THE  works  in  which  Maimonides  presents  his  ethical  teach- 
ings are  as  follows  :  — 

I.    Commentary   on  the  Mishnah1  (!"!JtP£n  ttJlTD),  in  many 
places,  but  especially  in  : 

a.  G-eneral    Introduction    to    the    Mishnah    Commentary 

(rowan  PITS  nrrns)2; 

b.  Introduction  to  Sanhedrin,  Chapter  X  (p?!!  pIS)  8  ; 

c.  Introduction  to  Abot  (HOtf  DITTlS  or  D^pIS  WOP)*  ; 

d.  Commentary  on  Abot.b 

II.    Book  of  Commandments  (JTliflBn  *"l£D),6  in  various  places. 


1  See  Catal.  Bodl.,  1853;  Arab.  Lit.,  p.  200  ff.,  and  Gratz,  VIs,  p.  273  ff. 
2  Generally,  but  incorrectly,  named  D'jrv  -noS  nD^n,  as  in  Pococke,  Porta  Mosis, 
which  contains  the  Arabic  text  with  Latin  translation.  3  Arabic  with  Latin 
translation  in  Porta  Mosis.  Arabic  with  Hebrew  translation,  J.  Holzer,  Zur 
Geschichte  der  Dogmenlehre  in  der  jiid.  Religionsphilosophie  des  Mittelalters. 
Mose  MaimunVs  Einleitung  zu  Chelek  (Berlin,  1901)  ;  English  translation  by 
J.  Abelson,  JQB,  vol.  XXIX,  p.  28  ff.  The  Arabic  text  with  notes  has  been 
recently  edited  by  I.  Friedlaender  in  Selections  from  the  Arabic  Writings  of 
Maimonides,  pp.  1-39.  *  See  Catal.  Bodl.,  1890-91.  5  Arab.  Lit.,  p.  273, 
n.  1.  Arabic  text  by  Baneth,  Berlin,  1905  ;  Ger.  translation  in  Rawicz, 
Commentar  des  M.  zu  den  Spriichen  der  Voter  (1910).  6  Written  by  M.  to 
serve  as  an  introduction  to  the  Mishneh  Torah  ;  it  contains  the  enumeration 
and  classification  of  the  613  precepts  of  the  Law.  See  Gratz,  VI3,  p.  291.  For 
a  part  of  the  Arabic  text  with  the  Hebrew  translation  of  Shelomoh  ben  Joseph 
ibn  Ayyub,  and  German  translation  with  notes,  see  M.  Peritz,  Das  Such  der 


8  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 


III.  MISHNEH  TORAHI  (1170-1180)  (mm  rUtttt),  scattered 

references,  but  especially  in  : 

Book  of  Knowledge  (91ttn  ISO)  in  the  Treatise  on  Beliefs 
(DISH  nOWT),  and  in  the  Treatise  on  Repentance  (rVDTI 

rarefy).* 

IV.  MOREH   NEBUKIM  (D'O'QJ  mitt),3  in  many  places,  but 

especially  Part  III,  Chapters  51-54. 
V.     Scattered  references  in  his  minor  works,  as  : 

a.  Terminology  of  Logic*  (|V3nn 

b.  Treatise  on  the  Unity  of  God5 

c.  Various   Responsa  (JTOltPri)  ;    Letters  (filliK)  ;    and 

Medical  Aphorisms  QWfc  p*!S).6 

In  his  Terminology  of  Logic"'  (pMHn  rYDtt),  Maimonides  divides 
philosophy  into  two  divisions  :  theoretical  (rP3V2?n  fcTSlDlTBH), 
and  practical  philosophy  (ttTCOn  fcTSlDlTSn).8  The  latter 
he  also  terms  "  human  philosophy"  (fW13K  fcfBIDl'TS),  or  "polit- 
ical science  "  (JTS'Httn  PlttDnn).  Under  theoretical  philosophy 
he  groups  mathematics,  physics,  and  metaphysics.  Under  prac- 
tical philosophy  are  found  ethics  (11PS3  DTK."!  n3!"13!"i),  house- 
hold economy  (TVOn  romi),  the  science  of  government 
rU'Httn),  and  politics  in  its  broadest  sense  (1171*1311 


Gesetze,  Theil  I  (Breslau,  1881)  ;  the  Arabic  text  was  published  by  Moi'se  Bloch, 
Paris,  1888.  See  HUb.,  p.  926  ;  Jew.  Lit.,  p.  71  ;  and  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I, 
articles  by  Moritz  Peritz,  Das  Buch  der  Gesetze,  nach  seiner  Anlage  und  seinem 
Inhalte  untersucht,  and  by  Ferdinand  Rosenthal,  Die  Kritik  des  Maimonidischen 
"  Suches  der  Gesetze  "  durch  Nachmanides. 

1  Catal.  Bodl.,  1869  ff.  ;  Gratz,  VI3,  p.  285  ff.  ;  Ziemlich,  Plan  und  Anlage  des 
Mischne  Thora,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  248-318.  2  76.,  pp.  273,  278, 
281-283.  3  For  literature,  description,  and  contents  of  the  Moreh,  see  HUb., 
pp.  414-434  ;  Gratz,  VI3,  p.  306  ff.  ;  M.  Friedlander,  Guide,  Introd.  ;  Bloch,  Cha~ 
rakteristik  und  Inhaltsangabe  des  Moreh  Nebuchim,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I, 
pp.  1-52.  *  HUb.,  pp.  434-436.  Hebrew  by  Moses  ibn  Tibbon  in  many 
editions.  8  HUb.,  pp.  436-437.  6  Consists  of  Arabic  excerpts  from  the 
writings  of  Galen  and  other  physicians.  Hebrew  by  Natan  ha-Meati,  edited  in 
Lemberg,  1800,  1834-35,  and  in  Wilna,  1888.  See  Jew.  Lit.,  p.  195  ;  HUb.,  pp. 
765-767  ;  Arab.  Lit.,  pp.  214-215  ;  Kosin,  Ethik,  p.  32,  n.  6  ;  Pagel,  Maimuni  als 
medizinischer  Schriftsteller,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  232-238.  7  Chapter 
XIV.  8  In  the  introduction  to  Sanhedrin,  Chap.  X  (Perek  Helek),  M.  speaks 
of  N^iDi^on  JD  >B>j?Dn 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Ethics,  or  the  science  of  self-guidance,  consists,  on  the  one 
hand,  in  acquiring  for  one's  self  noble  soul-qualities  or  charac- 
teristics (rVnMJPI  mitt!!),  and,  on  the  other  hand,  of  avoiding 
evil  qualities  (nimnsn  nnttlT).  These  qualities,  whether  good 
or  bad,  are  called  states  or  conditions  (11131311),  and  when  acquired 
each  is  known  as  a  property  (j^p).  Noble  qualities  are  called 
virtues  (lYnttn  JTPVE),  while  the  vices  are  termed  nVHTlB 
nnBn.  The  virtues  cause  good  deeds  (HDlian  nfeWT),  the 
vices,  bad  ones  (5"1H  rvnYSSi"!).  Ethics  is  the  science  of  virtues 
or  of  good  deeds.1 

B.    NAME,  DATE,  DESCRIPTION,  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE 
SHEMONAH  PERAKIM 

The  Shemonah  Perakim,  in  Maimonides'  system,  come,  accord- 
ingly, under  the  head  of  ethics  (ItPSJ  D"TNn  nnjrT),  which  in 
turn  is  a  branch  of  practical  philosophy  (rnPSOH  JTaiDlTBIT). 
They  are  divided  into  eight  chapters,  from  which  fact  the  name 
is  derived.  This  division  undoubtedly  goes  back  to  Maimoni- 
des himself,  who,  in  his  short  introduction  to  the  Perakim,  says 
"and  they  are  eight  chapters."2  The  Arabic  equivalent  is 
Thamaniat  Fuml,  which  Wolff  uses  as  a  title  for  his  edition  of 
the  Arabic  text.  It  seems,  however,  that  neither  of  these  titles 
originated  with  Maimonides,  for,  in  Moreh,  III.  35,  in  referring 
to  the  Perakim,  he  calls  them  the  Preface  to  Abot?  Whether 
Ibn  Tibbon  used  the  title  Shemonah  Perakim,  it  is  difficult  to 
ascertain.4  The  simplicity  of  the  title  has  fortunately  been  the 
cause  of  avoiding  confusion  as  to  its  exact  meaning,  which  is 
not  the  case  with  the  title  Moreh  Nelukimf 

1  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  37,  "  Die  Ethik  ist  also  nach  M.  die  Lehre  von  den  Tugen- 
den  und  den  guten  Handlungen."  2  a^pio  rmco  am.  See  Hebrew  text,  p.  7. 
8  ni3t<  i-rvna  :  Ar.  man  -n$.  See  p.  3,  n.  4,  on  the  Arabic  title  of  the  Com.  on 
the  Mishneh  (JJOD),  for  which  M.  is  probably  also  not  responsible.  4  In  his 
Preface  to  the  translation  of  the  Commentary  on  Abot,  I.  T.  refers  to  them  as 
31  3-vn  onpn  -\tt>n  O'piam.  See  p.  22,  n.  1.  5  On  the  appropriateness  of  mio 
0'3iaj  as  a  translation  of  the  Arabic  title  Dalalat  al  Hd'irln  (p-VNnSt*  riSsS-i), 
see  HUb.,  p.  418.  Maimonides  himself  was  of  the  opinion  that  D'OISM  n*mn 
would  be  preferable.  See  also  Kaufmann,  Attrib.,  p.  363,  and  n.  1 ;  and  espe- 
cially Munk,  Guide,  Note  sur  le  Titre  de  cet  Ouvrage,  at  beginning  of  Vol.  I ; 
and  II,  pp.  379-380. 


10  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

The  date  of  composition  of  the  Perakim  cannot  be  accurately 
determined.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  it  was  written  some- 
time between  1158  and  1165,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  com- 
mentary on  the  Mishnah,  which  was  made  public  in  1168. l 
As  to  the  translation,  the  only  source  of  information  regarding 
its  date  is  the  manuscript  Parma  R.  4386,  which  in  a  note 
states  that  the  Commentary  on  Abot  was  translated  by  Samuel 
ibn  Tibbon  in  Tebet  963,  which  is  the  year  1202.2 

Although  written  originally  as  an  introduction  to  the  com- 
mentary on  the  PirTce  Abot,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  in 
advance  problems  that  Maimonides  brings  up  in  the  course  of 
his  commentary,  the  Perakim  form  in  themselves  a  complete 
system  of  psychology 3  and  ethics,4  so  much  so  that  Rosin,  in 
writing  on  this  phase  of  Maimonides'  activity,  uses  them  as  a 
basis  of  his  discussion  in  the  first  half  of  his  Eihik,  in  which 
he  takes  up  Maimonides'  general  ethics.  They  do  not,  however, 
form  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  subject,  as  Maimonides 

1  According  to  a  postscript  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  written  by 
Maimonides,  he  began  to  work  on  it  at  the  age  of  twenty-three  (1158),  and 
finished  it  at  the  age  of  thirty,  in  the  year  1479  of  the  Seleucidian  era,  which 
is  the  year  1168,  when,  however,  Maimonides  was  thirty-three  years  of  age  and 
not  thirty.  Maimonides  could  not  have  made  a  mistake  in  his  own  age. 
Geiger  explains  the  difficulty  by  stating  that  Maimonides  must  have  written 
the  postscript  while  he  was  in  the  Maghreb  in  1165,  when  the  Commentary  was 
practically  finished.  The  words  onxna  and  nna:?1?  71  'o  rw  torn?  were,  how- 
ever, added  three  years  later  after  a  revision  had  been  made.  The  words 
rw  Qiz'hv  p  through  an  oversight  were  allowed  to  remain.  See  Geiger,  NacJi- 
gelassene  Schriften,  III,  p.  87,  end  of  note  41 ;  and  Griitz,  VI3,  p.  273,  n.  3. 
Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  30,  n.  3,  says  the  postscript  should  read  v^y\  &vky  p.  Cf. 
Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr.,  XL VI,  p.  23,  n.  3.  2  See  page  28  for  description  of 
the  manuscript  and  the  note  referred  to.  Jaraczewski  (Ibid.,  p.  22)  states 
that  I.  T.  translated  after  the  death  of  M.  3  Scheyer,  Psychol.  tiyst.  d. 
Maim.,  p.  9,  n.  1,  says,  "Diese  Schrift  des  M.  ist  eine  ethisch-psychologische 
Abhandlung."  Steinschneider  describes  the  Perakim  as  "  the  celebrated  eight 
chapters  on  psychology"  (Jew.  Lit.,  p.  102).  Friedlander,  Guide  (1904),  In- 
trod.,  p.  xx,  styles  them  "  a  separate  psychological  treatise."  The  Dutch  trans- 
lation, 1845  (see  infra,  p.  32),  has  a  sub-title,  Maimonides  Psychologic.  See  also 
Yellin  and  Abrahams,  Maimonides,  p.  77.  4  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  33,  describes  the 
Perakim  in  general  as  an  "  Abriss  der  allgemeinen  Ethik,"  and  Chapters  I  and 

11  as  "  die  psychologische  Grundlage  der  Ethik  im  Allgemeinen  und  Besonderen." 
Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  Introd.,  p.  xii,  calls  them  a  "  System  der  Ethik." 


INTRODUCTION  11 

himself  states,  but  with  a  reference  here  and  there  to  some 
other  of  his  works  may  be  easily  made  to  do  so.1  The  Mish- 
nah  Commentary  as  a  whole  was  written  for  those  who  were 
unable  or  not  disposed  to  study  the  Talmud,  and  for  those  who 
were,  to  facilitate  its  study.  Its  philosophical  and  psycho- 
logical parts  were  intended  for  those  who,  though  they  had 
a  knowledge  of  the  Talmud,  were  unacquainted  with  philo- 
sophical problems,  or  were  unable  to  harmonize  them  with 
Jewish  thought.  The  Perakim,  consequently,  being  intended 
for  readers  not  necessarily  versed  in  philosophy,  and  some  not 
being  deep  students  of  the  Talmud,  avoid  all  intricate  philo- 
sophical and  Talmudical  discussions.  For  students  versed 
both  in  the  Talmud  and  in  philosophy,  Maimonides  wrote  his 
Moreh  Nebukim,  the  object  of  which  was  to  bring  into  harmony 
Talmudical  Judaism  and  peripatetic  philosophy  as  developed 
among  the  Arabs.  Thus,  the  Mishnah  Commentary,  in  which 
the  rabbinical  and  the  philosophical  elements  are  successfully 
harmonized  and  blended,  leads  the  way  to  Maimonides'  master- 
piece, the  Moreh.  The  Perakim,  then,  may  be  looked  upon  as 
an  introduction  to  Maimonidean  philosophy,  and  may  be  profit- 
ably studied  by  the  student  before  he  attacks  the  problems 
contained  in  the  Moreh.  They  may  be  briefly  described  as  a 
treatise  on  the  soul,  its  characteristics  and  powers,  and  their 
employment  towards  the  goal  of  moral  perfection.2 

Chapter  I  is  psychological  in  character.  It  deals  with  moral 
life,  the  sources  of  which  reside  in  the  soul  (tTB3)  and  its 
powers  (nifO).  The  soul  is  a  unit  having  various  activities 
(niSlSS)  called  powers  (111113),  and  at  times  parts  (Q'pbn). 
Medical  authors  speak,  however,  of  many  souls,  as,  for  instance, 
Hippocrates,  who  says  there  are  three  souls,  —  the  physical 
(JV!ntO),  the  vital  (rP3VlT),  and  the  psychical  (rPtTS3).  The 
improvement  of  morals  (fiH^n  ppfl)  is  the  cure  of  the  soul 
and  its  powers.  Therefore,  just  as  the  physician  must  know 
about  the  body  as  a  whole  as  well  as  its  individual  parts,  so 
must  the  moral  physician  know  of  the  soul  and  all  its  powers 

1  See  infra,  Chapter  I,  p.  45  ;  Chapter  V,  p.  74  ;  Chapter  VII,  p.  83  ;  Chapter 
VIII,  p.  100.  2  See  Gratz,  VI3,  p.  275. 


12  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

or  parts.  There  are  five  parts  to  the  human  soul  :  (1)  the 
nutritive  (p!"I)  ;  (2)  the  perceptive  (tTT")£!"!)  ;  (3)  the  imagi- 
native (ntt"lttn)  ;  (4)  the  appetitive  (VflSriDn),  and  (5)  the 
rational  (  vDttfiT).  Other  beings  are  spoken  of  as  having  these 
powers,  but  they  are  essentially  different  from  those  of  man, 
whose  soul,  as  the  bearer  of  human  properties,  is  not  the  same 
as  that  of  other  creatures,  as  the  horse,  the  ass,  or  the  eagle. 

The  nutritive  part  of  the  soul  has  seven  powers,  or  proper- 
ties :  (1)  the  power  of  attraction  ("]tt71£!T)  ;  (2)  the  power  of 
retention  (|TH"Ifci"l)  ;  (3)  the  power  of  digestion  (T>29ft!"I)  ; 

(4)  the   power   of   repelling   superfluities   (fYTimttv   firm!"!)  ; 

(5)  the  power  of  growth  (Ttl£!"I)  ;   (6)  the  power  of  propa- 
gation (nftYlD  TvlZSfJ),  and   (7)  the  power  of  differentiation 
between  the  nutritive  humors  (WITv)  and  those  to  be  repelled. 

The  perceptive  part  consists  of  the  five  senses,  seeing  (mXIH), 
hearing  (>£t#!T),  smelling  (fTHPt),  tasting  (D^lOn),  and  feeling 


The  imaginative  part  is  the  power  of  retaining  impressions 
of  objects  even  when  they  do  not  perceptibly  affect  the  senses, 
and  of  combining  them  in  different  ways,  so  that  the  imagina- 
tion constructs  out  of  originally  real  things  those  that  never 
have  nor  can  exist.  The  Mutakallimun  overlook  this  truth  as 
regards  the  imagination,  which  they  make  the  corner-stone  of 
their  philosophical  system. 

The  appetitive  part  is  the  power  to  long  for  a  thing  or  to 
shun  it.  From  this  there  results  the  seeking  after  or  fleeing 
from  a  person  or  thing  ;  inclination  and  avoidance  ;  anger  and 
satisfaction  ;  fear  and  bravery  ;  cruelty  and  compassion,  and 
many  other  qualities  (D'HpD,  accidents)  of  the  soul.  The 
organs  of  this  power  are  all  parts  of  the  body. 

The  rational  part  is  the  power  peculiar  to  man  by  which  he 
understands,  thinks,  acquires  knowledge,  and  discriminates  be- 
tween proper  and  improper  actions.  This  manifold  activity  of 
the  rational  part  is  both  practical  and  speculative.  The  practi- 
cal activities  are  partly  mechanical  (rOtPfTtt  rO&Ott)  and  partly 
intellectual.  The  speculative  activities  are  the  powers  of  man 
by  which  he  knows  things  which,  by  their  nature,  are  not  sub- 


INTRODUCTION  13 

ject  to  change.  These  are  called  the  sciences.  The  mechanical 
power  is  that  by  which  man  learns  the  arts,  as  that  of  archi- 
tecture, agriculture,  medicine,  or  navigation.  The  intellectual 
power  is  that  by  which  man  reflects  upon  the  possibility  or 
manner  of  doing  an  intended  action.  The  soul,  which  is  a  unit, 
but  which  has  many  powers  or  parts,  bears  the  same  relation 
to  the  intellect  (TOttM)  as  matter  does  to  form. 

Chapter  II,  like  Chapter  I,  is  psychological  in  character.1 
It  deals  with  the  powers  of  the  soul,  obedient  or  disobedient 
to  the  Law,  and  the  determination  of  the  parts  which  produce 
virtues  or  vices.  Violations  (JllTO!?)  and  observances  (ni2tt3) 
of  the  Law  are  found  only  in  two  of  the  parts  of  the  soul, 
namely,  the  perceptive  and  the  appetitive.  The  nutritive  and 
the  imaginative  have  no  violations  nor  observances  connected 
with  them,  since  these  powers  have  neither  knowledge  nor 
choice.  There  is  some  doubt  as  regards  the  rational  power, 
but  if  it  has  violations  and  observances,  they  are,  respectively, 
beliefs  in  false  or  true  doctrines. 

Virtues  are  of  two  kinds,  ethical  virtues  (rfi1ft!"I  fll T>2?£)  and 
intellectual  virtues  (rVTTOttM  ni79£).  Their  opposites  are  the 
two  kinds  of  vices.  Intellectual  virtues  are  found  in  the  rational 
part.  These  virtues  are  wisdom  (!"ID3)T),  which  is  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  near  and  remote  causes  (HOD)  of  things  based  on  a 
previous  knowledge  of  their  existence ;  reason  (^DttT),  which  in 
turn  comprises  (a)  innate,  theoretical  reason  (K1JT1  ^VSn  TOttM 
SntDD  Vh  XtffcJn)  ;  (5)  acquired  reason  (,1^3,1  ^DEM) ;  (c)  sa- 
gacity (rWOnn  HOI),  or  intellectual  cleverness  (rtOJ"in  2110),  or 
the  ability  to  quickly  understand  a  thing.  The  vices  of  this 
power  are  the  opposites  of  these  virtues.  The  ethical  virtues 
belong  only  to  the  appetitive  part,  and  in  this  connection  the 
perceptive  part  is  subservient  to  the  appetitive.  The  virtues  of 
this  power  are  very  numerous.  They  are  moderation  (rVPPriT) ; 
liberality  (HOT) ;  probity  (""KPT) ;  meekness  (.113!?) ;  humility 
(Pirn  nibBtP)  ;  contentedness  (mparCPI) ;  bravery  (.11132), 
and  uprightness  (Hlltt^).  The  vices  of  this  power  consist  of 

*  On  the  title  of  Chapter  II,  see  Hebrew  text,  p.  14,  n.  1, 


14  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

an  exaggeration  or  a  deficiency  of  these  virtues.  The  nutritive 
and  the  imaginative  powers  have  neither  vices  nor  virtues. 

The  diseases  of  the  soul  (ttfSJH  ""7FT)  are  described  in 
Chapter  III.  The  ancient  philosophers  laid  down  the  dictum 
that  the  soul,  like  the  body,  can  be  healthy  or  sick.  A 
healthy  soul  is  in  such  a  condition  (Hi'DD)  that  only  good  and 
honorable  deeds  flow  from  it.  The  opposite  is  true  of  a  dis- 
eased soul.  Just  as  the  physically  sick  desire  things  that  are 
bad  for  them,  but  which  they  consider  good,  so  do  those  whose 
souls  are  ill  seek  the  bad  and  the  evil,  thinking  that  they  are 
good.  Furthermore,  just  as  those  whose  bodies  are  diseased 
consult  a  phj^sician  and  take  medicines  that  are  unpleasant  to 
the  taste  in  order  that  they  may  be  restored  to  a  healthy  con- 
dition, so  must  the  morally  ill  consult  the  wise  men  (D^wf!!"!), 
who  are  the  physicians  of  the  soul  (ttfBJH  "'XS'Tl),  and  ascertain 
from  them  what  are  the  bad  and  what  are  the  good  deeds. 
They  must  follow  the  advice  of  the  soul-physicians,  even  though 
what  they  prescribe  be  distasteful.  If  a  person  is  physically 
ill,  and  does  not  consult  a  physician,  his  end  will  be  premature 
death,  and,  likewise,  one  morally  ill,  who  does  not  seek  the 
advice  of  the  sages,  will  experience  a  moral  death. 

Chapter  IV  deals  with  the  cure  of  the  diseases  of  the  soul. 
In  agreement  with  Aristotle,  Maimonides  declares  that  actions 
are  good  when  they  follow  a  medium  course  between  two  ex- 
tremes which  are  both  bad.  Virtues  are  conditions  (D'U'On) 
of  the  soul  and  characteristics  which  are  midway  between  two 
states,  one  of  which  is  excessive  and  the  other  deficient.  Thus, 
generosity  is  the  mean  between  sordidness  (HITS)  and  extrav- 
agance OUS) ;  courage  (iTTQ3),  the  mean  between  recklessness 
(nUSDS  ITVD&)  and  cowardice  (Snbn  "p) ;  humility  (ITO), 
that  between  haughtiness  (ITIfcW)  and  self-abasement  (fTPSE? 
tmn),  and  so  forth.  People  often  consider  one  or  the  other 
extreme  a  virtue,  as  when  they  praise  the  reckless  man  as  be- 
ing brave,  or  the  lazy  as  being  contented.  To  cure  a  person 
who  is  morally  unsound,  that  is  who  performs  deeds  which  go 
to  the  one  or  the  other  extreme,  he  should  be  made  to  practise 
the  opposite  extreme  until  his  original  fault  has  been  remedied. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

That  is,  if  a  man  is  niggardly,  he  must  practise  deeds  of  extrava- 
gance until  his  niggardliness  disappears.  Then  he  is  instructed 
to  stop  his  extravagance,  and  follow  the  medium  course  of 
generosity.  Man  must  constantly  guard  his  actions  that  they 
maintain  the  proper  balance  between  exaggeration  and  defi- 
ciency. By  this  means  he  gains  the  highest  degree  of  human 
perfection,  comes  nearer  to  God,  and  partakes  of  His  eternal 
blessings.  This  is  the  most  perfect  form  of  reverencing  the 
Deity.  Maimonides  ends  the  chapter  by  harmonizing  the  phil- 
osophical and  Talmudical  views  in  regard  to  man's  powers  of 
weighing  his  actions  and  following  the  proper  mean. 

The  directing  of  the  powers  of  one's  soul  towards  a  certain 
goal  is  the  subject  of  Chapter  V.  Man's  one  aim  in  life  should 
be  to  understand  God.  All  his  actions  and  words  should  be 
so  arranged  as  to  accomplish  this  purpose,  and  consequently  he 
should  seek  not  the  most  pleasant  but  the  most  useful  things. 
The  body  should  be  kept  in  a  healthy  condition  for  the  sake 
of  the  purity  of  the  soul.  When  one  partakes  of  food  that 
is  pleasant  but  dangerous  to  the  health,  he  is  like  a  senseless 
beast.  Man  acts  sensibly  only  when  all  his  actions  are  aimed 
at  gaining  bodily  welfare  and  spiritual  superiority.  Science 
and  education  aid  in  this ;  for  the  study  of  algebra,  geometry, 
and  mechanics  sharpens  one's  intellect,  and  enables  one  to 
understand  the  truth  of  the  proofs  of  God's  existence.  Man 
ought  to  direct  his  words  towards  this  goal.  He  should  speak 
only  of  such  things  as  will  benefit  his  soul,  or  avert  danger 
from  his  body.  In  consequence  of  this,  man  will  desist  from 
many  ordinary  actions  and  words.  He  will  not  think  of  beau- 
tifying the  walls  of  his  house  with  costly  decorations  or  his 
clothes  with  expensive  embroideries,  unless  it  be  done  for  the 
purpose  of  spiritual  uplifting.  Such  an  aim  is  lofty  and  dif- 
ficult of  attainment,  but  one  accomplishing  it  ranks  as  high  as 
does  a  prophet.  The  rabbis  have  most  wonderfully  and  con- 
cisely expressed  this  sentiment  by  the  saying,  "Let  all  your 
actions  be  for  the  sake  of  God."  (Abot  II,  12.) 

In  Chapter  VI,1  Maimonides  discusses  the  difference  between 
1  On  title,  see  Hebrew  text,  p.  35,  n.  1. 


16  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 


the  saintly  man  (rnTSOn  TDHH)  and  the  one  who  curbs  his 
desires  (1WBJ  DK  bttn&m  m1  m  EDm).  Agreeing  with 
Aristotelian  philosophy,  Maimonides  asserts  that  the  truly  vir- 
tuous man  practises  the  good  as  a  result  of  an  innate  inclina- 
tion to  do  so.  He  is  superior  to  the  one  who,  though  he  may 
do  deeds  equally  good,  yet  in  order  to  accomplish  them,  must 
subdue  his  desires  which  are  of  an  evil  nature.  That  is,  the 
condition  of  the  saint's  soul  is  better  than  that  of  the  man  who 
subdues  his  passions.  Proverbs  XXI.  10,  "The  soul  of  the 
wicked  longeth  for  evil,"  agrees  with  this  sentiment.  The 
rabbis,  however,  seem  to  contradict  this  opinion  by  saying 
that  he  who  has  evil  thoughts  and  desires,  but  who  conquers 
them,  is  greater  than  he  who  has  no  battle  to  fight.  They 
even  maintain  that  the  greater  a  man  is,  the  more  powerful 
are  his  desires.  On  the  face  of  it,  the  opinions  of  the  rabbis 
and  the  philosophers  seem  to  disagree.  But  here  Maimonides 
uses  his  wonderful  ability  as  a  harmonizer  of  philosophical  and 
rabbinical  doctrines.  He  explains  away  the  contradiction  by 
stating  that  the  philosophers  meant  by  the  desires  for  evil  the 
inclination  to  commit  such  transgressions  as  murder,  stealing, 
deceit,  and  so  forth.  The  laws  forbidding  these  are  called  by  the 
rabbis  "commandments"  (TfiiCtt),  or  "ordinances"  (D'TDStPtt). 
There  is  no  doubt  that  a  soul  that  desires  any  of  these  grave 
evils  is  a  bad  soul.  There  is,  however,  another  kind  of  less 
important  transgressions,  the  performance  of  which  is  prohib- 
ited by  statutes  (Dpi"!).  It  is  in  reference  to  these  evils,  and 
not  to  the  first  mentioned,  that  the  rabbis  say  that  if  a  man 
desires,  but  conquers  them,  his  reward  is  great.  These  are,  for 
instance,  the  partaking  of  meat  and  milk  together,  or  the  wear- 
ing of  clothes  made  of  two  different  materials.  The  rabbis 
would  not  say,  any  more  than  the  philosophers,  that  the  man 
who  desires  to  murder  but  refrains  from  doing  so  is  greater 
than  the  one  who  never  desires  to  murder. 

In  Chapter  VII,  Maimonides  discusses  the  partitions  or  walls 
(filiTntt)  which  separate  man  from  God,  and  also  describes 
what  prophecy  is.  As  explained  in  Chapter  II,  there  are  in- 
tellectual and  moral  virtues,  and  their  opposite  vices.  These 


INTRODUCTION  17 

vices,  which  are  termed  partitions,  prevent  man  from  behold- 
ing God.  As  many  vices,  intellectual  or  moral,  a  man  has,  by 
so  many  partitions  is  he  separated  from  God.  The  prophets 
"looked  upon  "  God  from  behind  the  least  number  of  partitions. 
The  fewer  they  were,  the  higher  was  the  rank  of  the  prophet. 
Three  virtues  the  prophets,  however,  must  have,  which  Mai- 
monides  deduces  from  the  rabbinical  saying,  "  Prophecy  rests 
only  upon  the  wise,  the  brave,  and  the  rich."  The  wise  man 
is  the  one  who  possesses  all  intellectual  virtues.  The  brave 
man  is  he  who  conquers  his  desires.  The  rich  man  is  the  one 
who  is  satisfied  with  his  lot.  Moses  was  the  only  prophet  in 
whom  all  moral  and  intellectual  virtues  were  combined.  The 
only  partition  or  wall  between  him  and  God  was  his  physical 
body,  from  which  the  spirit  of  man  cannot  divorce  itself  on 
earth.  This  partition  the  rabbis  call  specularia,1  a  transparent 
wall,  through  which  Moses  gazed  upon  the  highest  truth,  but 
not  as  one  does  with  human  eyes. 

The  interesting  problem  of  the  freedom  of  will,  in  which 
again  Maimonides  successfully  blends  the  philosophical  and 
the  rabbinical  doctrines,  is  taken  up  in  Chapter  VIII.  Mai- 
monides begins  with  the  statement  that  man  is  not  born  with 
either  virtues  or  vices,  just  as  he  is  not  born  skilled  in  an  art. 
He  may,  however,  have  a  predisposition  towards  a  certain  char- 
acteristic, but  every  man's  temperament  is  equally  susceptible 
to  virtue  as  well  as  to  vice.  It  is  man's  moral  duty  to  encour- 
age any  predilection  he  may  have  towards  virtue,  and  to  stamp 
out  any  desire  for  the  vicious.  No  virtue  is  unattainable  ;  there 
is  no  vice  that  cannot  be  avoided,  no  matter  what  man's  natural 
bent  may  be.  The  developing  of  what  is  good  and  the  conquer- 
ing of  what  is  bad  may  be  accomplished  by  instruction,  guidance, 
and  habit.  Astrologers,  however,  and  those  who  believe  with 
them,  maintain  that  a  man's  destiny,  his  conduct  in  life,  in  fact, 
all  his  actions,  are  determined  according  to  the  constellation 
under  which  he  is  born.  This  belief  Maimonides  denounces  as 
ridiculous.  The  rabbis  and  the  philosophers  alike  agree  in  the 
belief  that  man  has  absolute  free  choice,  and  that  he  alone  is 

1  See  infra,  chapter  VII,  p,  79,  notes  3  and  4. 
c 


18  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

responsible  for  his  actions.  If  this  were  not  so,  all  commands 
and  prohibitions  of  the  law  would  be  in  vain.  All  learning, 
teaching,  and  effort  of  all  kinds  would  be  useless  if  man's  actions, 
knowledge,  and  characteristics  were  determined  by  an  outside 
power.  If  such  were  the  case,  reward  and  punishment  would 
be  unjust;  for  no  matter  how  much  a  man  would  try  to  do  a 
certain  deed,  if  it  were  predetermined  that  he  should  not  do  it, 
he  would  be  unable  to  perform  it.  If  Simeon  killed  Reuben, 
it  would  be  unjust  to  punish  Simeon  ;  for  he  did  not  kill  of  his 
own  volition,  but  was  forced  to  do  so. 

Maimonides  then  attacks  a  popular  belief  that  all  actions, 
even  such  as  sitting  or  standing,  are  done  by  the  will  of  God. 
In  general,  this  is  true,  but  not  of  any  given  individual  action. 
A  stone  thrown  up  in  the  air  falls  to  the  ground,  which  is  in 
accordance  with  a  general  law  of  nature  that  God  willed  at 
creation.  God,  however,  does  not  will  that  a  certain  stone  at 
a  certain  time,  when  thrown  into  the  air,  should  fall  to  the 
ground.  At  creation  God  willed  also  that  man  should  have 
certain  characteristics,  that  he  should  walk  upright,  have  a 
broad  chest,  have  fingers  on  his  hands  and  so  forth,  and  like- 
wise man  was  endowed  with  the  characteristics  of  having  free- 
dom of  will  which  he  can  exercise.  Maimonides  then  proves 
that  certain  statements  in  the  Bible  which  seemingly  support 
the  theory  of  predestination  are  not  of  such  a  nature. 

In  conclusion,  Maimonides  takes  up  a  question  often  asked, 
"  Does  God  know  in  advance  that  a  certain  man  will  do  a  good 
or  a  bad  deed  at  a  certain  time,  or  does  He  not  know  it  ?  "  If 
He  does  not  know,  then  the  principles  of  religion  are  under- 
mined, for  God  is  said  to  be  all-knowing.  If  He  does  know  in 
advance,  then  this  clearly  proves  that  man's  actions  are  pre- 
ordained. Maimonides  answers  by  having  recourse  to  meta- 
physics. God  does  not  know,  he  says,  by  means  of  human 
knowledge,  nor  does  He  live  by  means  of  human  life,  so  that  it 
can  be  said  He  and  His  knowledge  are  distinct,  or  that  He  and 
His  life  are  different,  as  is  true  of  man.  God  is,  however,  the 
knower,  the  knowing  and  the  known.  He  is  the  living,  He  is 
the  life,  and  the  giver  of  life.  Man  cannot,  owing  to  his  imper- 


INTRODUCTION  19 

fections,  comprehend  what  is  the  knowledge  or  life  of  God  any 
more  than  he  can  grasp  what  God  Himself  is.  Thus,  Maimoni- 
des  reconciles  the  two  beliefs  that  man  is  free  to  choose,  and 
that  God  is  yet  all-knowing. 

C.     SAMUEL  IBN  TIBBON  AS   A   TRANSLATOR— HIS   TRANS- 
LATION OF   THE   SH EM ON AH  PERAKIM 

Samuel  ibn  Tibbon,1  the  most  famous  of  an  illustrious  fam- 
ily of  translators,  by  his  translation  of  Maimonides'  Moreh 
Nebukim,  performed  an  inestimable  service  for  Jewish  philoso- 
phy. Written  originally  in  Arabic,  the  Moreh  would  have 
remained  a  sealed  book  to  the  majority  of  Jews,  had  not  Ibn 
Tibbon  rendered  it  accessible.  Had  he  not  translated  it,  no 
doubt  some  one  sooner  or  later  would  have  accomplished  that 
task,  but  it  was  very  fortunate  that  one  who  was  a  contempo- 
rary of  Maimonides,  who  had  his  entire  confidence,  and  who 
could  correspond  with  the  author  in  regard  to  obscure  passages, 
and  receive  valuable  instructions  from  him,  should  have  done 
the  work.  From  the  correspondence  between  Maimonides  and 
the  men  of  Liinel,  Ibn  Tibbon's  birthplace,  we  note  that  Mai- 
tnonides  had  a  high  regard  for  Samuel's  ability  as  a  translator, 
and  honored  him  as  a  man  of  erudition.2  It  seems  that  the 
scholars  of  Liinel  wrote  to  Maimonides  asking  him  to  translate 
the  Moreh  into  Hebrew,  but  the  answer  came  that  Ibn  Tibbon 
was  already  at  work  on  it,  and  that  Maimonides  had  faith  in  the 
translator.3  He  considered  Ibn  Tibbon  a  capable  and  skilled 
translator,  and  wondered  at  his  knowledge  of  Arabic,  although 
he  did  not  live  in  an  Arabic-speaking  country. 

Shortly  after  Ibn  Tibbon  translated  the  Moreh,  Jehudah  al- 
Harizi,  the  poet,  was  asked  by  a  number  of  scholars  to  do  the 
same  work.  This,  of  course,  implied  that  Ibn  Tibbon's  render- 
ing was  not  satisfactory  to  them.  They  wished  al-Harizi  to 

1  Born  1160,  died  1230.  See  Renan-Neubauer,  Les  Bobbins  Franqais,  p. 
673  ff.  ;  also  Les  Ecrivains  Franqais  ;  Gratz,  VI3,  205  ;  Winter  and  Wtinsche, 
Die  Jud.  Litteratur,  II,  330,  385  ;  M.  Schloessinger,  in  JE.,  vol.  VI,  p.  548  ; 
Geiger,  Judaism  and  its  History  (New  York,  1911),  pp.  375-376.  2  On 
Maimonides'  correspondence  with  the  men  of  Liinel,  see  HUb.,  pp.  415-416. 
»  Gratz,  VI8,  p.  324  ;  HUb.,  p.  417. 


20  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

translate  the  Moreh  in  a  simple,  clear  and  polished  style,  as  the 
version  of  Ibn  Tibbon,  being  literal,  was  necessarily  heavy. 
Al-Harizi  prefixed  to  his  work  two  introductions,  one  contain- 
ing an  alphabetical  list  of  "  strange  words,"  and  the  other,  the 
contents  of  each  chapter.  It  is  fortunate  for  Ibn  Tibbon  that 
al-Harizi,  too,  did  the  same  work,  for  a  comparison  shows  the 
marked  superiority  and  excellence  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  translation. 
In  his  Grlossary  of  Strange  Words,  which  he  later  prefixed  to  the 
Moreh,  Ibn  Tibbon  rightfully  shows  the  many  errors  and  short- 
comings of  the  translation  of  al-Harizi,  who  might  be  a  good 
poet,  but  who  showed  his  ignorance  when  he  attempted  to  deal 
with  scientific  matters.1 

Pococke's  opinion  of  the  two  translators  is  interesting.  He 
says,  "  The  version  of  Harizi  is  inferior  to  that  of  Ibn  Tibbon, 
not  because  that  of  Tibbon  is  more  elegant,  but  as  regards  mat- 
ter it  is  closer  to  the  original  text."2  Shem  Tob  ibn  Palquera 
in  a  letter  says,  "  In  Ibn  Tibbon's  translation  there  are  only  a  few 
errors ;  and  if  the  learned  translator  had  had  time  he  would 
certainly  have  corrected  these.  But  in  al-Harizi's  translation 
mistakes  are  numerous  and  words  are  often  given  a  wrong 
meaning."  3  Munk  scores  Ibn  Tibbon's  translation  as  a  mere 
cast  of  the  original  and  unintelligible  to  the  ordinary  Hebrew 
reader.4  Steinschneider,5  in  commenting  on  this  harsh  criti- 
cism, shows  the  difficulties  that  faced  Ibn  Tibbon,  and  points 

1  Cf.  HUb.,  p.  420  ff. ;  Kaufmann,  Der  F'uhrer  MaimunPs  in  der  Weltlittera- 
tur,  AGPh.,  XI,  p.  346  ff.  See  especially  Kaufmann,  Attrib.,  p.  493,  n.  182, 
where  are  mentioned  a  number  of  those  who  find  fault  with  al-Harizi's  trans- 
lation and  introductions.  Abraham  ben  Maimon  says  of  him :  inpnjn  nn'rw 
nSpSipci  neois'D  (Kobez,  III,  f.  16b  coll.).  Ibn  Tibbon  in  his  own  Glossary  of 
Strange  Words  especially  condemns  that  of  al-Harizi  with  the  words  :  IXD  «S  ••JNI 
D'San  nn  vjcS  IJFN  ^yvr\  nc'ND  D'Sis'ua  N*?n  I'M  *nnn  -iysns>  TCNO  icis  nx:pi  nNjtr 
C'S>33>Di  D^SD  >jflS  o>Si:s>3Di  nvjro  D^io  nsfM.  See  also  Friedlander,  Guide, 
.  1904,  Introd.,  p.  xxxii.  2  Preface  to  Porta  Mosis,  "  Versis  (Charisii)  illi 
ab  Aben  Tibbon  factae  postposita,  fuit,  non  quod  ilia  Tibbonidae  elegan- 
tior,  sed  materiae  congruentior  fuerit,"  etc.  8  HUb.,  p.  432  ;  JE.,  art.,  Ibn 
Tibbon.  4  Munk,  Guide,  I,  Preface,  p.  ii,  "La  version  d'Ibn-Tibbon,  qu'on 
peut  appeler  un  veritable  '  caique '  de  1'originale  arabe,  ne  peut  etre  bien  com- 
prise que  par  celui  qui  possede  a  la  fois  la  connaisance  de  1'arabe  et  celle  de 
1'hebreu  rabbinique  et  qui  a  acquis  des  notions  suffisantes  de  la  philosophic  mu- 
sulmane  et  de  sa  tenninologie."  6  HUb.,  pp.  419,  423. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

out  the  value  of  his  translation,  even  though  it  is  largely  a  lit- 
eral one.  He  maintains  that  Ibn  Tibbon's  work  will  continue 
to  be  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  translations, 
for  it  laid  the  foundation  of  Hebrew  philosophical  style  with  its 
syntactical  and  terminological  Arabisms.1  Gratz  contemptu- 
ously calls  Ibn  Tibbon  a  "handicraftsman  in  philosophy."2 

While  it  is  true  that  Ibn  Tibbon's  style  is  not  the  best,  he 
should  not  be  criticized  too  severely  on  this  account.  He  con- 
sciously avoided  elegance  of  expression  for  the  sake  of  accuracy, 
and  in  order  to  faithfully  render  the  original  even  went  so  far 
as  to  reproduce  ambiguities.  As  far  as  possible,  he  consulted 
Maimonides  on  difficult  passages.3  One  must  remember,  too, 
that  Ibn  Tibbon  was  a  pioneer  in  the  art  of  translating  from 
Arabic  into  Hebrew,  that  he  had  no  patterns  to  go  by, 
except  the  works  of  his  father,  Jehudah,  that  a  philosophical 
Hebrew  vocabulary  did  not  exist,  and,  in  consequence,  even  the 
most  ordinary  terms  had  to  be  coined.4  Ibn  Tibbon  was  well 
aware  of  the  difficulties  that  the  reader  would  meet  in  his 
translation,  and  in  order  to  avoid  these  as  far  as  possible 
composed  a  Glossary  of  Strange  Words,5  in  which  he  ably 
explains  the  philosophical  terms  employed.  He  realized  fully 
that  his  translation  contained  Arabisms,6  but  wherever  it  was 
possible  to  use  a  Hebrew  word  or  expression  he  did  so.  Many 
words  and  constructions  in  Hebrew  which  Ibn  Tibbon  used  for 
the  first  time  to  convey  the  Arabic  sense  are  now  commonly 
accepted  philosophical  terms.  It  is  unjust,  moreover,  to  judge 
Ibn  Tibbon  by  the  ordinary  texts  of  the  works  he  has  trans- 
lated. Not  until  a  carefully  prepared  and  revised  text  of  the 
Moreh  has  been  published  will  one  be  able  to  determine  accu- 
rately his  ability  and  his  shortcomings.  Judging  by  the  expe- 
rience of  the  editor  in  his  textual  work  in  the  Perakim,  often 


1  Arab.  Lit.,  p.  205.  2  Gratz  (Eng.  ed.),  Ill,  p.  566.  8  See  his  Preface  to 
the  Moreh,  also  Friedlander,  Guide,  Introd.,  p.  xxviii.  4  He  had  as  guides  his 
father's  translations  and  various  Arabic  books  which  he  possessed.  See  his 
Preface  to  the  Moreh,  also  HUb.,  p.  416.  5  On  I.T.'s  Glossary  (mSn  ID  e>r^B 
nnr),  see  HUb.,  p.  421  ff.  6  On  Arabisms  of  I.T.,  see  his  Preface  to  the 
Moreh  ;  also  HUb.,  pp.  419-420. 


22  THE  ETHICS   OF  MAIMONIDES 

an  otherwise  obscure  or  meaningless  passage  is  rendered  clear 
by  evidence  from  manuscript,  or  other  reliable  sources. 

Ibn  Tibbon  translated  Maimonides'  Commentary  on  Abot,  in- 
cluding its  introductory  chapters,  the  Perakim,  at  the  request 
of  the  men  of  Liinel,1  who  were  presumably  convinced  of  his 
capabilities  by  what  Maimonides  thought  of  him.  All  that  has 
been  said  of  Ibn  Tibbon  as  a  translator  of  the  Moreh  is  true 
generally  of  his  work  on  the  Perakim.  As  in  the  Moreh,  he 
sacrificed  style  for  the  sake  of  accuracy,  and  so,  on  the  whole, 
translated  with  great  literalness,  very  often  word  for  word. 
Wherever  he  has  to  any  marked  degree  departed  from  the  orig- 
inal, the  fact  has  been  mentioned  in  the  notes.  As  an  instance 
of  the  care  he  exercised  in  turning  the  Arabic  into  Hebrew,  we 
may  point  to  his  rendering  the  Arabic  phrase  X7K  Drn"?K, 
meaning  "unless  indeed,"  into  the  Hebrew  fcO  DK  DTPK,  which 
very  naturally  gave  rise  to  a  misreading,2  or,  where  preserved 
correctly,  was  unintelligible  save  to  those  who  were  acquainted 
with  the  Arabic  idiom.  This  shows  the  justice  of  Munk's  criti- 
cism. Wherever  Ibn  Tibbon  was  uncertain  of  the  translation 
of  an  Arabic  word,  which  might  be  rendered  by  one  of  two 
Hebrew  words,  his  usual  custom  was  to  put  one  in  the  text  and 
the  other  in  the  margin.  These  variants  came  afterwards  into 
the  text.  In  regard  to  the  Moreh,  he  relied  upon  the  advice  of 
Maimonides  as  to  which  should  be  eventually  used.3  It  seems, 
however,  that  he  did  not  consult  Maimonides  in  reference  to 
the  Shemonah  Perakim,  and  consequently  at  obscure  points 
introduced  glosses,  noted  by  the  expression  "that  is  to  say" 
CTffte),  or  "I  mean"  (S"*)),  or  "the  explanation  of"  ('SS). 
An  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  Chapter  II,  where,  after  the  words 
"  as  moderation  "  (filTniD),  there  is  added  the  phrase  "  that  is 
to  say,  fear  of  sin  "  (KtDh  RT  "IBI^D).4 

At  the  beginning  of  Chapter  IV,  where  the  doctrine  of  the 


1  See  LT.'s  Preface  to  his  translation  of  the  Commentary  on  Abot  :  1*0 
[some  Mss.,  Twaa]  Tiara  :nn  onpn  -\vx  trpioni  nroDen  DN?  BTVD  \-n?is  -vj?  S^jiS  •>n3n 
o'Diaj  mm  1DND3  w$  T^No  onS  ifvnyn1?  >jc3  wpa  nijijj?.  See  Preface  to  Porta 
Mosis,  p.  4,  and  Perakim,  ed.  Slutcki,  p.  3.  2  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  V,  p.  32, 
n.  28.  8  See  I.T.'s  Preface  to  the  Moreh.  *  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  II,  p.  16,  n.  1. 


INTRODUCTION  23 

Mean  is  discussed,  Ibn  Tibbon  has  taken  what  in  his  case  may 
be  considered  great  liberties  with  the  text,  resulting  in  such  a 
divergence  from  the  original  that  Rosin1  was  compelled  to 
assume  that  the  translator  had  before  him  an  Arabic  text  dif- 
fering from  that  of  the  manuscript  reproduced  in  Pococke's 
Porta  Mosis.  The  order  of  the  list  of  virtues  in  Ibn  Tib- 
bon's  version  in  no  manuscript  or  edition  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  original,  although  the  manuscripts  and  editions 
disagree  among  themselves  in  this  regard.  There  are  also  a 
number  of  glosses,  explaining  in  detail  some  of  the  virtues. 
The  reason  for  a  change  in  arrangement  seems  to  be  hinted 
at  in  one  of  the  glosses,  written  in  all  likelihood  by  Ibn 
Tibbon,  where  there  occurs  the  phrase,  "  and  for  this  reason  I 
have  arranged  them  thus"  ("p  DTHID  PTPl).2  The  nice  dis- 
tinction drawn  by  Maimonides  between  the  extremes  of  the 
various  virtues  he  discusses  was  sufficient  cause  for  Ibn  Tibbon 
to  have  introduced  explanatory  glosses,  as  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  find  in  Hebrew  the  proper  words  for  the  fine  Arabic 
terminology.  The  necessity  of  elucidation  becomes  apparent 
from  the  fact  that  a  number  of  glosses  which  did  not  originate 
with  Ibn  Tibbon  are  found  in  some  of  the  sources.3  It  may, 
consequently,  be  maintained  that  the  Arabic  text  we  have  to- 
day is  substantially  the  same  as  that~from  which  Ibn  Tibbon 
translated,4  and  also  that,  on  the  whole,  the  Hebrew  of  the 
Perakim  follows  the  Arabic  very  closely. 

It  is  needless  to  go  into  detail  here  as  to  the  peculiarities  of 
Ibn  Tibbon's  translation,  as  these  are  taken  up  in  the  notes 
on  the  text.  The  critical  text  of  the  Hebrew  offers  in  places 
valuable  evidence  on  obscure  readings  in  the  Arabic,  attention 
to  which  has  also  been  drawn  in  the  notes.6 

1  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  31,  n.  2.  2  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  IV,  p.  21,  line  8.  8  See  He- 
brew text,  c.  IV,  p.  19,  notes  16  and  17.  *  The  translators  of  the  Mishnah 
Commentary  seem  to  have  had  only  one  copy  from  which  they  all  translated. 
Geiger,  Moses  ben  Maimon,  p.  83,  n.  43.  5  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  VIII,  p.  42, 
n.  14  ;  p.  43,  n.  7  ;  p.  47,  n.  6  ;  p.  53,  n.  1. 


24  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

D.    DESCRIPTION  OF   COLLATED    MATERIAL— GENERAL 
REMARKS   ON   THE   TEXT 

A  glance  at  the  long  list  of  manuscripts  and  editions  of  the 
Perakim  shows  the  impracticability  of  trying  to  collate  all  the 
material  available.  The  editor  has,  therefore,  chosen  a  number 
of  the  most  valuable  sources,  and  has  minutely  compared  them, 
being  constantly  guided  by  the  Arabic.  He  has  confined  his 
attention  as  far  as  the  Arabic  is  concerned  to  the  Pococke  ver- 
sion and  that  of  Wolff  based  on  it.  A  careful  collation  of  Arabic 
texts  may,  however,  clear  up  some  points  which  are  still  left 
in  doubt.  The  editor  hopes  to  accomplish  this  task  some  day. 

The  material  used  in  collation  is  as  follows : 

Br  =  manuscript  of  British  Museum  Add.  14763,  written 
A.D.  1273,  containing  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon's  translation  of  Mai- 
monides'  Commentary  on  Abot  preceded  by  Ibn  Tibbon's  intro- 
duction to  and  translation  of  the  Shemonah  Perakim.  This  is  the 
oldest  and,  on  the  whole,  the  best  source  known  to  the  editor. 
It  is  very  carefully  written,  with  scarcely  any  scribal  errors. 
For  the  first  six  chapters  its  evidence  is  very  reliable.  In  the 
seventh  chapter  it  begins  to  vary  from  the  original  Arabic,  and 
in  the  eighth  it  departs  rather  widely,  having  readings  which 
agree  substantially  with  those  of  some  unreliable  sources.  It 
is  possible  that  the  first  six  chapters  were  copied  from  one 
source,  the  seventh  and  eighth  from  another.  This  manuscript 
is  characterized  throughout  by  an  almost  superfluous  use  of 
the  matres  lectionis,  even  in  Biblical  quotations.  It  has  a  few 
vocalized  words,  all  of  which  have  been  recorded  in  the  notes. 

Ma  =  a  manuscript  Mahzor,  Roman  rite,  fourteenth  or  fif- 
teenth century ;  in  the  library  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Sem- 
inary of  America.  Its  readings  are,  on  the  whole,  close  to  the 
Arabic,  in  places  superior  to  those  of  Br,  especially  in  Chapters 
VII  and  VIII,  where  the  latter  is  faulty.  The  revised  text  of 
these  two  chapters  is  based  mainly  on  this  manuscript.  There 
are,  however,  many,  though  unimportant,  omissions,  except  in 
one  instance  in  Chapter  VIII,1  where  all  texts  depart  from  the 

1  See  Hebrew  text,  p.  61,  n.  10. 


INTRODUCTION  25 

original,  on  account  of  which  lack  of  evidence  on  the  part  of 
Ma,  the  editor  has  been  obliged  to  reconstruct  the  text.  It 
has  a  number  of  errors  such  as  misspelled  words  and  minor 
repetitions,  due  to  carelessness  of  the  scribe,  or  to  a  faulty 
source.  A  few  vocalized  words  and  marginal  readings,  chiefly 
of  a  later  hand,  occur. 

So  =  Maimonides'  Commentary  on  Abot,  Soncino  (1484—85  ?). 
It  is  found  in  the  libraries  of  Columbia  University,  of  the 
Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America,  and  elsewhere,  and 
is  an  incunabulum.  It  is  minutely  described  by  De  Rossi,  in 
Annales  Hebraeo  Typographici,  Parma,  p.  131.  It  was  prob- 
ably copied  from  the  Soncino  edition  of  the  Mahzor.1  Its  chief 
value  lies  in  its  being  in  places  corroboratory  of  Br  or  Ma. 
Only  occasionally  does  it  offer  an  independent  reading  of  value. 

Mi  =  Mishnah  text  with  Commentary  of  Maimonides,  Naples, 
1492 ;  printed  by  Joshua  Soncino.2  This  is  the  first  edition  of 
the  Mishnah.  The  copy  used  by  the  editor  is  found  in  the 
library  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America.  It 
has  marginal  notes  offering  corrections,  as  well  as  some  inter- 
linear insertions.  It  agrees  substantially  with  So,  its  source 
evidently  being  the  same,  both  being  Soncino  editions..  Va- 
riants from  it  are  recorded  in  the  notes  only  when  differing 
from  those  of  So. 

As  it  has  been  the  aim  of  the  editor  to  restore  the  text  as  it 
came  from  the  pen  of  Ibn  Tibbon,  it  has  very  often  become 
necessary  for  him  to  place  in  the  notes  readings  whose  Hebrew 
is  superior  to  that  of  those  retained  in  the  text.3  Ibn  Tibbon, 
on  the  whole,  translated  literally,  and  consequently  the  literal- 
ism of  a  reading  indicates  conclusively  that  it  originated  with 
him.  The  more  idiomatic  renderings  are  due  to  copyists,  who 
endeavored  to  improve  the  text,  but  who,  it  may  be  added, 


1  See  Catalogo  di  Opere  Ebraiche  Greche  Latine  ed  Italians  stampate  dai 
Celebri  Tipografi  Soncini  ne1  Secoli  XV  e  XVI,  Compilato  da  Gaetana  Zaccaria 
Antonucci,  p.  113  ;  Steinschneider,  Supplementum  Catalogi  libr.  hebr.in  Biblioth. 
Bodleiana,  in  Centralblatt  fur  Bibliothekswesen  (Leipzig,  1894),  Vol.  XI,  p.  486, 
and  JE.,  vol.  VI,  p.  578,  art.  Incunabula.  2  See  Antonucci,  Catalogo,  etc., 
pp.  63-54.  3  See,  for  instance,  Hebrew  text,  c.  I,  p.  9,  n.  1. 


26  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

through  their  ignorance  of  the  Arabic  constructions,  at  times 
introduced  errors  into  their  manuscripts.1 

In  order,  however,  to  equalize  the  text  and  render  it  as 
smooth  as  possible,  wherever  one  source  has  a  reading  which 
in  minor  details  is  more  correct  grammatically  than  that  of 
another,  though  perhaps  better  manuscript  or  edition,  the 
former  reading  is  preferred  without  mention  in  the  notes, 
although  the  looser  rendering  may  go  back  to  Ibn  Tibbon. 
This  is  especially  true  as  regards  the  agreement  of  suffixes  and 
pronouns  with  their  nouns.  Thus,  D!"Q,  DHtt,  etc.,  of  So  are 
often  retained  in  preference  to  JHD,  ptt,  etc.,  of  Br  or  Ma, 
although  the  latter  are  more  authoritative  sources.2 

Emendations  of  the  text  have  been  avoided  unless  supported 
by  good  authority,  and  always  by  that  of  the  original  Arabic, 
as,  for  instance,  in  Chapter  VIII,3  where  all  the  Hebrew 
sources  are  at  fault,  the  manuscripts  and  editions  reading, 
TOKl,  inn&X,  -pn&1,  or  naxi  inn&X.  The  Arabic  Kl^ne 
points  plainly  to  an  original  in^l. 

Glosses  which  can  be  traced  to  Ibn  Tibbon  are  printed  in 
small  type.  All  other  glosses  are  put  in  the  notes. 

The  reader  can  generally  tell  the  source  on  which  a  given 
part  of  the  text  is  based  by  the  absence  of  the  sign  of  that 
source  from  the  notes.  In  Chapters  I  to  VI,  for  instance,  the 
sign  Br  is  seldom  present  in  the  notes,  which  indicates  that  the 
text  follows  that  manuscript  very  closely.  The  character  of 
the  notes  in  this  regard  should,  however,  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration. Thus,  Chapters  VII  and  VIII  are  based  mainly  on 
Ma,  but  that  sign  appears  often  in  the  notes  because  of  minor 
errors  and  omissions  in  its  text.  Variants  occurring  in  Mi  are 
noted  only  when  they  differ  from  those  in  So. 

1  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  V,  p.  32,  n.  28.  2 1.T.  was  conscious  of  such  errors  in  his 
translations.  See  his  Preface  to  the  Moreh,  in  which  he  refers  to  his  father's 
(Jehudah's)  Preface  to  his  translation  of  Bahyaibn  Pakuda's  niaarn  main,  where 
Jehudah  dwells  upon  the  difficulties  in  translating  from  Arabic  into  Hebrew. 
Cf.  HUb.,  p.  374.  8  See  Hebrew  text,  p.  54,  n.  37. 


INTRODUCTION  27 

E.     MANUSCRIPTS  —  EDITIONS  —  TRANSLATIONS  —  COMMEN- 
TARIES 

For  a  list  and  description  of  the  Arabic  manuscripts  contain- 
ing the  Thamaniat  Fusul  (Shemonah  Perakim),  see  Gated.  Jiodl., 
1889-1890. 

The  Arabic  text,  in  Hebrew  characters,  with  a  Latin  transla- 
tion is  contained  in  :  — 

1.  Porta  Mosis  sive  Dissertationes  Aliquot  a  R.  Mose  Mai- 

monide,  suis  in  varias  Mishnaioth,  etc.,  by  Edward  Po- 
cocke  (Oxford,  1654),  pp.  181-250. 

2.  The  Theological  Works  of  the  Learned  Dr.  Pocock,  edited 

by  Leonard  Twells  (London,  1740),  pp.  68-93.1 

3.  It  has  also  been  edited  by  Wolff,  with  a  German  transla- 

tion, under  the  title  Thamaniat  Fuml,  Musa  Maimum's 
Acht  Capitel.  Arabisch  und  Deutsch  mit  Anmerkungen 
von  Dr.  M.  Wolff  (Leipzig,  1863).  Second  revised 
edition,  Leiden,  1903. 

In  the  following  are  enumerated  a  partial  list  of  manuscript 
works  containing  the  whole  Abot  Commentary,  and  also  of  the 
manuscript  Mahzorim  in  which  the  Shemonah  Perakim  are 
found : 2  — 

I.    WITH  ABOT 

Oxford  Bodleian  Library  * 

376.3.     Massekhoth  Aboth,  with  Sh'muel  ibn  Tibbon's  translation  of  M.'s  com- 
mentary.    Copy  made  by  Mord'khai  ben  Levi    jfpn  at  Ferrara  for  H. 

1  The  Porta  Mosis  also  contains  the  other  introductions  found  in  Maimoni- 
des'  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah,  namely,  the  Introduction  to  the  Mishnah 
(erroneously  called  in  Seder  Zeraim  praefatio) ,  the  introduction  to  Perek  Helek, 
to  Kodoshim,  to  Tohoroth,  and  to  M'nahoth.  Twells,  in  his  account  of  the  life 
and  writings  of  Pococke,  says  (p.  44)  that  the  Mss.  Pococke  made  use  of  "were 
very  good  and  some  of  them,  he  imagined,  the  very  originals  written  by  the 
author's  (M.'s)  own  hand."  Jaraczewski  (ZPhKr.,  XL VI,  p.  22)  states  that 
Pococke  used  an  Oxford  Ms.  The  title  page  of  the  Porta  Mosis  has  the  imprint 
of  H.  Hall  Academiae  Typographies,  1655,  but  the  title  page  of  the  Appendix  is 
dated  1654.  2  See,  also,  Catalogues  des  Manuscripts  Hebreux  et  Samaritains 
de  la  Bibliotheque  Imperiale  (Paris,  1866),  nos.  3321,  334*,  605,  609,  617,  674s, 
7502,  and  119110,  and  catalogues  of  other  libraries.  8  Neubauer,  Catalogue. 


28  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

Noah  ben  'Immanuel  Norzi;  finished  on  Sunday,  22d  of  lyyar,  5237 
(1477)  (German  rabbinical  characters). 

409.3.  Fol.  285.  On  Aboth,  translation  of  Sh'muel  Tibbon.  In  M.'s  commen- 
tary on  Mishnah  (German  rabbinical  characters). 

714.2.  Fol.  54.  Sh'muel  ibn  Tibbon's  preface  and  Heb.  translation  of  M.'s 
commentary  on  Aboth  and  of  the  Eight  Chapters  (Italian  rabbinical 
characters) . 

1254.2.  Fol.  112.     M.'s  commentary  on  Aboth  in  Heb.   (German  rabbinical 
characters). 

2282.3.  Fol.  14.     Sh'muel  ibn  Tibbon1 s  translation  of  M.'s  Eight  Chapters  and 
his  commentary  on  Aboth,  with  marginal  notes  by  a  later  hand  (German 
rabbinical  characters). 

British   Museum  Library1 

Add.  14763.  Sam'l  ibn  Tibbon' s  translation  of  M.'s  Commentary  on  nias,  pre- 
ceded by  Ibn  Tibbon's  introduction  and  c^no  'n,  A.D.  1273.2 

Add.  16390.     M.'s  a'p-io  'n,  XVIth  century. 

Add.  17057.  The  aipie  n:iDt?  of  M.  and  his  Commentary  on  Aboth  (imperfect), 
translation  from  the  Arabic  into  Hebrew  by  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon,  XVth 
century. 

De  Rossi  Library  (Parma) 8 
Cod.  46.     3°.     R.  Mosis  M.  Scemone  Perakim,  seu  octo  Capita  de  animae  facul- 

tatibus  a  R.  S.  Tibbonide  hebraice  versa.    Sec.  XV. 
Cod.  71.     Pirke  Avoth  seu  Capitula  patrum  cum  Comm.  Maimonidis  ejusque 

praefat ;  memb.  rabb.  in  4°  in  Sec.  XV. 
Cod.  269.     2°.    Pirke  Avoth  cum  Commentario  Maimonidis  ac  fusa  ejus  praefa- 

tione  ;  membr.  rabb.  in  4°.  an.  1444- 

Cod.  273.     1°.     Pirke  Avoth  seu  Capitula  patrum  cum  Com.  Maimon. 
Cod.  327.     8°.     Maimonidis  Comm.  in  Pirke  Avoth  cum  fusa  praef.  seu  octo 

Perakim  ex  R.  S.  Tibbonides  translatione. 

Cod.  353.     P.  A.  seu  capitula  patrum  cum  Comm.  Maimonidis,  etc.     Sec.  XV. 
Cod.  438.     6°.     M.  Comm.  in  P.  A.  cum  praef.  Sam.  Tibbonidis.     Ad  calc.  vero 

Com.  M.  in  P.  A.  haec  reperiuntur  "  Finita  est  translatis  comm.     hujus 

tractatus  ex   lingua   arab.  in  sanctam  mensa  tebelh  an.  963  (chr.  1202) 

quern  vetrit  in  arce  Liinel  sapiens  philosophus,  eruditus  in  omnia  scien- 

tia,  R.  Sam.  fil.  sapientis  magni  R.  Jeh.  aben.  Tib.  fel.  m.  Granatensis 

hispanus." 
Cod.  1161.     2°.    Pirke  avoth  cum  commentario  M.  et  fusa  ejus  prefatione.    An. 

1419. 
Cod.  1246.     1°.     R.  M.  M.  Perachim,  Capitula  de  facultatibus  animae  seu  fusa 

praefatio  ad  P.  A. 

2°.     P.  A.  seu  Capitula  patrum,  cum  M.  com.  ex  versione  R.  aben  T. 

Sec.  XIV. 

1  Margoliouth,  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  Mss.,  London,  1893.        2  See  supra, 
p.  24.        8  Mss.  Codices  Hebraici,  Parma,  1803. 


INTRODUCTION  29 

Cod.  1262.     R.  Mosis  Maim.    Tredecim  articuli  fidei  et  Commentarius  in  P.  A. 
cum  fusa  seu  Capitibus  de  facult.  animae.     Auni  1454. 

Koniglichen  Hof  und  Staatsbibliothek  in  Muenchen  l 

1281.     Maimonides  (maw  -DD  -e)  voran  die  s.  g.  8  Kapp.  (29712,  3277),  h.  von  Sam. 

Tibbon  ;  N.  2102.     Sp.  curs  XV  Jahrh. 
210a.     Schon.  ital.  rabb.  XIV-XV  J.  dann  verschied  ;  s  16. 

35b,  man  'DD  e>WB  s.  N.  128  am  Rand  vow.  f.  35,  35b  Raschi,  946  zu 

K.  6,  etc. 
29712.     299  f  .  span.    Curs,  gross  bis  62,  199  b-240,  296  ff  .  a.  1431-9.    231  Maimoni- 

des (oipna  ruiDt?  s.  n.  108)  K.  3  ff.    Saml.  Tib.'s  Vorw.  f.  240b  angefangen. 
3277.     (55b-71b)  S"st  p"D  p  wo  wai  paion  Snjn  annS  mas  rwn  »wfl  enthalt 

nur  das  Vorw.  des  Uebersetzers  S.  ibn  Tib.  und  die  a^pia  njiDB>  (so  zuletzt, 

vgl.  1281.     Zeile  3,  4  im  Akrost.  des  Abschreibes  lautet  : 


"D  jai  an 
•unnni  njnn  <ja  /ijn1?  oSia  uru 


DJ  nyatp    pn  jni  jn>?« 

4017.  (Von  der  Hand  des  Cod.  400  XV-XVI  J.)  269.  Ms'  acht  Kapitel.  Ant 
und  Mitte  def  ;  s.  Cod.  128  zuletzt  Minuskel  1498. 

Koniglichen  Bibliothek  (Berlin)* 

60  (Ms.  Or.  Qu.  498.)  Kleine  italien.  Cursiv,  gegen  Ende  XV  (?)  Jahrh.  Be- 
sitzer  :  Benj.  Pesaro.  (man  naoa)  der  talinud.  Tractat  Aboth,  Text  in 
grosserer  Schrift  &  punktirt  mil  dem  Commentar  des  Maimonides  dessen 
Einleitung,  bekannt  als  a>pifl  njin^  (8  Kapitel)  vorangeht. 

752  (Ms.  Or.  Oct.  138.)  Pergament,  303  Seiten,  grosse  schone  span.  rabb.  Hand. 
etwa  XIV  Jahrh.  S.  86  maw  roon  S~T  a"annS  C'IT'B  (zuletzt)  Commentar 
des  Mose  Maimonides  zum  Tractat  Abot  (ohne  Text,  vgl.  Cod.  567,  Fol. 
498  Qu1).  Der  erste  Abschreiber  fand  die  Vorrede  des  Uebersetzers 
Sam'l  ibn  Tibbon  erst  nachtraglich  und  schrieb  sie  S.  293-303,  etc. 


H.     MAHZORIM 

British  Museum 

Harley  5686.  IITHD  for  the  whole  year,  Roman  rite.  Aboth  with  M.'s  com- 
mentary and  his  Eight  Chapters  in  Sam'l  ibn  Tibbon's  transl.  XVth 
century. 

Add.  16577.  mrno  Roman  rite,  includes  Aboth  with  Eight  Chapters  and  com- 
mentary of  M.  in  Hebrew  translation  of  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon.  XVth 
century. 

1  Steinschneider,  Die  Hfb.  Handschriften,  Munich,  1875.       2  Steinschneider, 
Verseichniss  der  Heb.  Handschriften,  Berlin,  1878. 


30  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

Add.  27070.  Part  1  of  a  iiinc,  Roman  rite,  including  Aboth  with  the  Eight  Chap- 
ters and  Commentary  of  M.  in  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon's  Hebrew  translation. 
XVth  century. 

Add.  19944-19945.  -nine,  Roman  rite,  including  Aboth  with  the  Eight  Chapters 
and  Commentary  of  M.  in  the  Hebrew  translation  of  Samuel  ibn  Tibbon. 
A.D.  1441. 

De  Rossi  Library 

Cod.  63.     Mahzor  .  .  .  item  Pirke  Aboth  cum  com.  Maimonidis  membr.  rabb. 

in  4°  min.     Sec.  XV.     M.'s  com.  in  Pirke  Avoth  quern  in  Machazorim 

passim,  addi  supra  animadvertimus,  est  ex  Hebr.  versione  R.  Samuelia 

Aben  Tibbon.     Occurrunt  etiain  ejusdein  M.  octo  Perakim  seu  capita. 
Cod.  260.     Mahzor  .  .  .  Accedunt  Pirke  Avoth  seu  Capitula  patrum  cum  com. 

M.  .  .  .  memb.  rabb.  fol.  min.  sec.  XV.     M.  com.  Pirke  Av.  et  epistola 

de  resurrectione  sunt  ex  versione  R.  Samuelis  Aben  Tib. ;  ac  prior  ille 

praefixaim,  habet  fucam  auctonus  praefationem,  seu  Capitula  de  facultati 

bus  animae. 
Cod.  378.     Mahzor  seu  Purim  et  Pesach  cum  libro  Esther,  etc.  —  et.  M.  Com. 

P.  A.  ex  versione  S.  Aben  T.  memb.  rabb.  Mutilis  in  4°  :  maj.  sec.  XIII. 

Vetustus  codex  singularibus,  instructus  lectionibus,  etc. 
Cod.  403.     Mahzor  hisp.  cum  Sect,  biblicia  ac  Psal.  occurr.  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum 

com.  M.  Minhag  seu  Treves,  memb.  rabbin,  in  8°  an.  1470. 
Cod.  420.     Mahzor  ital. ;  cum  Ruth,  etc.    P.  A.  cum  Com.  M.  sec.  XV. 
Cod.  740.     Mahzor  ital.  .  .  .    Pirke  Avoth  cum  comm.  Maimonidis,  membr. 

rabb.  fol.  min.  vel.  4°  Maj.  Sec.  XV. 
Cod.  767.     Mahzor  ital.  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum  comm.  M.  membr.  rabb.  in  fol.  an 

1463. 

Cod.  770.     P.  A.  cum  M.  Comment,  hebr.  verso  a  R.  S.  aben  Tib.     Sec.  XIV. 
Cod.  802.    Mahzor  italicuin  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum  com.  M.  ei  Perachim  seu  VIII 

capitibus.     Sec.  XV. 
Cod.  814.     Mahzor  ritus  italici  .  .  .  P.  A.  .  .  .  cum  comm.  M.  ej.  °  Perachim 

membr.  ital.      1489. 
Cod.  955.     Mahzor  hisp.  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum  com.  M. ;  membram  hisp.  fol.  sec. 

XIV  vel  XV. 
Cod.  959.     Mahzor  romanum  °  vel  italicum  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum  com.  M.  ac  Jarchii 

ej.  M.  Perachim  an.  1400. 
NOTE.  —  Maimonides  com.  in  P.  A.  qui  est  consueta  Sam.  Tibbonidis 

versione  praemittur  interpretis  et  auctoris  altera  f usior  de  animae  facul- 

tatibus  quam  scemone  perachim  seu  octo  capitula  inscripsit. 
Cod.  1212.     Machazor  italicum  .  .  .  P.  A.  cum  com.  M.  ac  fusa  ejus  praef.  seu 

Octo  Capitibus.     Sec.  XV. 

Jewish   Theological  Seminary  (New  York) 
Mahzor.  Roman  rite,  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century.1 

1  See  supra,  pp.  24-25. 


INTRODUCTION  31 

EDITIONS  OF   THE   SHEMONAH  PERAKIM 

The  Perakim  are  found  in  all  editions  of  the  Mishnah  and 
Talmud  which  contain  the  Commentary  of  Maimonides.1  The 
text  of  the  Perakim  contained  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Mishnah 
agrees  substantially  with  that  found  in  the  Commentary  on  Abot 
which  has  been  collated  by  the  editor,  and  designated  by  So. 
Both  were  printed  by  Soncino.la  The  Perakim  in  the  first 
edition  of  the  Talmud  are  practically  in  accord  with  these. 

The  Commentary  on  Abot  with  the  Perakim  was  incorporated 
into  the  Italian  ritual  (1484)  and  also  into  the  Greek  ritual 
(since  1520).  2  They  may  also  be  found  in  the  Mdhzorim  of  the 
Soncino  Brothers,  Soncino,  1485  (finished,  Casal  Maggiore, 
I486),3  and  Rimini,  1521,  and  in  the  Bologna  edition  of  the 
Mahzor,  1540-1541.* 

EDITIONS  OF  ABOT   WITH   THE   SHEMONAH  PERAKIM 

1.  Abot  with  commentary  of  Maimonides,  including  the  She- 
monah  Perakim,  Soncino,  1484  ;  described  on  page  25. 

2.  JH  p  SwrroK  pror  pn  "si  oaain  «a  DS  rvo«  pna 
no*  nSro  nn  -i&K&n  otw  mpi  SMS-OK  rmrp,i545. 
,TW  rwrm.6  4°. 

3.  nOK  p*)S,  with  commentary  of  Maimonides,  London, 
5532  (1772).6  12°. 

SEPARATE  EDITIONS 


1.  Hurwitz,  Abraham.6  .  .  .  DmSK  'tt  JfeW  QTOK  HDH  1BD 

Dp*lB  roitttf  S^  pimn  ^n3^  IS.     Lublin,  Kalonymos 
ben  Mordechai  Jafe  und  sein  Sohn  Chojyim.     1574. 

2.  teSWnWK  triD<in  Dr«  .  .   .  &W     Vienna,  1798.     8°. 


1  See  Fiirst,  Bibliotheca  Judaica,  vol.  II,  p.  309.  la  See  supra,  p.  25.  2  HUb.  , 
pp.  437-438.  (7a«aZ.  Bodl.,  1890,  2483.  3  See  Antonucci,  Catalogo,  etc.,  p.  115. 
HUb.,  p.  438,  n.  477.  *  Rosin,  .EWh'fc,  p.  31,  n.  2.  5  See  Catalogue  of  the 
Cohen  Library,  Baltimore,  Md.  6  Other  editions  of  the  same  are  Lublin,  1616  ; 
ib.,  1622  ;  Krakau,  1577  ;  ib.,  1602.  See  Fiirst,  loc.  cit.  Hurwitz  was  a  pupil 
of  R.  Moses  Isserles  ;  see  Monatsch.  fur  Gesch.  und  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthum 
(1903),  vol.  XI,  p.  163,  n.  1.  7  According  to  the  preface,  it  follows  a  Latin 
text,  presumably  that  of  Pococke,  but  its  text  is  hardly  different  from  that  of  the 
other  editions. 


32  THE   ETHICS   OF  MAIMONIDES 

3.    Lichtenstein  (Abraham  ben  Eliezer).     ppTII  p13t  JVI  1BD 

Sprat  powa  -o  rwa  irm  ••pis  un  bv  nova  nnan. 

Wilna,  1799.    (I03pn)  M^Yl.    4°.     (Contains  only  chap- 
ters I-V.) 

4.  v*i  ayixsD-OT'K  |9ttrawi  -«n  to^o  aatyinb  npiB  rmarc 

SSKJDIK  Sto-lSDSn-ISS  pw.      Basel,  1804.      Printed  by 
Wilhelm  Haas.1 
5.    Salomon,  Gotthold.2     .  .  .  D"p-|B  mitttt  bbl'D  ppPJtt 


Dessau,  Moses  Philippsohn,    1809.      8°.      With 
vowels. 

6.  Beer,   Michal.     tn&'lS  D^plB  !TOtf.     Le  huit  Chapitres 

de  Maimonide^  etc.,  trad,  en  franc.     8°.     Paris,  1811. 

7.  Acht  Abschnitte  3  .  .  .  aus  dem  Arabischen.     Braunschweig, 

1824.     8°. 

8.  Falkenheim,  S.     Die  Ethik  des  Maimonides  oder  Schemoneh 

Perakim;  deutscJi  bearbeit.     Konigsberg,  1832.     8°. 

9.  D"2X2*lS  D^plB  H310W.     De  Acht  Hoofdstukken  van  Mai- 

monides. Bevattende  zijne  Zielkundige  Verhandeling. 
Set  Hebreeuwsch  op  nieuw  nagezien  en  in  het  Nederduitsch 
vertaald.*  Groningen,  S.  J.  Oppenheim,  1845. 
10.  Slucki,  David.  D'SainS  Dp*lB  m»W  in  bvTW^  ni23n. 
Contains  also  a  biography  of  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon  and 
notes.  Warsaw,  1863. 

11.  Wolf,  Michai.   POT?  vnnb  prea  n'^rb  o^pis 
rvnsri  vbv  ^01:1  ^bxii  b^^o  nxa  oisib  toim 

m3W  n2  mwin.     Lemberg,  1876  (Follows  ed.  Dessau, 
1809).     With  vowels,  but  unreliable. 

COMMENTARIES,   ANNOTATED  EDITIONS,   AND 
TRANSLATIONS 

The  commentaries  on  the  Perakim  are  found  in  some  of  the 
above-mentioned  editions.  They  are  the  D!"PQK  IDPI  *1BD  by 

1  Haas  was  a  member  of  the  Acad.  der  mech.  Kiinste  in  Berlin.  2  HUb., 
p.  488.  Salomon  was  a  teacher  at  the  Freischule  in  Dessau  ;  Beer,  Rabbi  Moses 
ben  Maimon,  p.  72.  3  Catalogue  of  Hebrew  Books  in  the  British  Museum, 
p.  587.  *  A  copy  is  found  in  the  Columbia  University  Library  (N.Y.). 


INTRODUCTION  33 

Hurwitz,  which  is  found  in  all  editions  of  the  Talmud  which 
contain  Maimonides'  commentary,1  and  that  of  Lichtenstein  in 

his  p*ra  pn  "\so. 

The  annotated  editions  are  those  of  Vienna,  1798 ;  Dessau, 
1809  ;  Groningen,  1845  ;  Warsaw,  1863  ;  and  Lemberg,  1876. 

The  popularity  of  the  PeraTcim  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
they  have  been  translated  many  times  into  various  languages. 
The  following  is  a  list  of  the  translations  :  — 

a.  Latin.  —  The  Perakim  in  Latin2  are  found  in  :  — 

(1)  Pococke's  Porta  Mosis,  from  the  Arabic.  (2)  The  trans- 
lation of  the  Mishnah,  with  the  commentaries  of  Maimonides 
and  Bartinora,  by  Surenhusius.2*  (3)  The  unedited  transla- 
tion of  Maimonides'  Commentary  on  Abot,  by  Jacob  Manti- 
nus.3  (4)  The  translation  of  Maimonides'  Commentary  on 
Abot,  by  C.  C.  Uythage*. 

b.  Grerman.  —  In  the  editions  of  (1)  Vienna,  1798  ;  (2)  Haas, 
Basel,  1804 ;  (3)  Salomon,  Dessau,  1809 ;   (4)  Wolff,  Leipzig, 
1863  and  Leiden,  1903,  from  the  Arabic;   (5)  Wolf,  Lemberg, 
1876  ;   (6)  by  M.  Rawicz,  in  Kommentar  des  Maimonides  zu  den 
Spruchen  der  Vater,  ins  Deutsche  iibertragen,  1910,   pp.   1-47. 
Portions  of  chapters  I  and  VIII  are  translated  by  Beer,  in  R. 
Moses  ben  Maimon. 

c.  French.  —  Beer,  Paris,  1811 ;  Jules  Wolff,4*  Paris,  1912. 

d.  Dutch.  —  Groningen,  1845. 

e.  English. — Hebrew  Review,  edited  by  Morris  J.  Raphall, 
London,  Volumes  I  and  II  (1834-1835). 6 

1  See  Fiirst,  loc.  cit.  2  Jaraczewski  (ZPhKr,  XL VI,  p.  23)  refers  to  a 
Latin  translation  which  appeared  in  Bologna  in  1520.  2a  Mishnah  sive  totius 
Hebraeorum  juris,  rituum,  antiquitatum,  aclegum  oralium  systema  cum  Maimo- 
nidis  et  Bartenorae  commentariis  inteyris.  Accedunt  variorum  auctorum  notae 
Latinate  donavit  G.  Surenhusius.  Amstelaedami,  1698-1703.  3Jak.  Mantino 
(A.  in  Tortosa)  Octo  Capita  R.  Mosis  Maimonidis  .  .  .  in  versione  latino,  etc. 
Bologna,  1526.  4°.  See  Fiirst,  loc.  cit.;  HUb.,  p.  438.  *  Cnej.  Cornel. 
Uythage  (in  Leyden),  Explicatio  K.  Mosis  Maimonidis  .  .  .  complectens  octo 
capita,  etc.,  Leyden,  1683.  8°.  HUb.,  p.  438.  **  See  Jew.  Chronicle  (London), 
No.  2255,  p.  30.  5  Incomplete  and  very  free.  Chapter  IV  is  translated  by  Coup- 
land  in  Thoughts  and  Aspirations  of  the  Ages,  London,  1895,  pp.  206  ft . 


FOREWORD 

THE  author,  Rabbi  Moses  (may  God  preserve  him!)  said:1 
We  have  already  explained  in  the  introduction  to  this  work 
(i.  e.  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnati)  the  reason  the  author 
of  the  JMishnah  had  for  putting  this  treatise  (Abot)  in  this 
Order  (Nezikin)2.  "We  have  also  mentioned  the  great  benefit 
that  is  to  be  derived  from  this  treatise,  and  have  promised 
many  times  in  preceding  passages  to  discuss  certain  important 
points  at  some  length  in  commenting  upon  it.  For,  although 
the  contents  of  the  treatise  seem  clear  and  easy  to  under- 
stand, yet  to  carry  out  all  that  it  contains  is  not  a  simple 
matter  for  everybody.  Moreover,  not  all  of  its  contents  is  in- 
telligible without  ample  comment,  withal  that  it  leads  to  great 
perfection  and  true  happiness.  For  these  reasons,  I  have  deemed 
it  advisable  here  to  go  into  a  more  lengthy  discussion.  Besides, 
our  Rabbis  of  blessed  memory  have  said,  "He  who  wishes  to 
be  saintly,  let  him  practise  the  teachings  of  Abot"3.  Now, 
there  is  nothing  that  ranks  so  high  with  us  as  saintliness, 
unless  it  be  prophecy,  and  it  is  saintliness  that  paves  the  way 
to  prophecy ;  as  our  Rabbis  of  blessed  memory  said,  "Saintliness 
leads  to  holy  inspiration."  *  Thus,  their  words  make  it  clear 

1  See  Hebrew  text  p.  5,  n.  2.  The  introductory  words  are  by  ibn  Tibbon. 

2  See  Goldschmidt,  Der  Bdbylonische  Talmud,  I,  Berlin,  1897,  Einleitung 
in  die  MiSnah  von  Moses  Maimonides,  p.  XXX;  and  Hebrew  Review,  vol. 
I,  p.  191. 

3  Baba  Eamma,  30  a:  ^a  D"p^  NTon  irns^  <m  \XK>  'Nn  mw  *ai  ten 

"o  n1?  -neto  masn  ^B  IBN  ton  pp'in 

«  'Abodah  Zarah,  20  b:  K»n  TNT  T^  rwna  m»  riijjf  *\*b  rwaa  nrron 
TV  nto3»  KBH  rwv 


FOREWORD  35 

that  the  putting  into  practice  of  the  teachings  of  this  tractate 
leads  one  to  prophecy.  I  shall  later  expound  the  truth  of  this 
assertion,  because  upon  it  depends  a  number  of  ethical  prin- 
ciples. 

Further,  I  deem  it  fit  to  preface  the  commentary  on  the  re- 
spective Haldkot1  proper  by  some  useful  chapters,  from  which 
the  reader  may  learn  certain  basic  principles  which  may  later 
serve  as  a  key  to  what  I  am  going  to  say  in  the  commentary. 
Know,  however,  that  the  ideas  presented  in  these  chapters  and 
in  the  following  commentary  are  not  of  my  own  invention; 
neither  did  I  think  out  the  explanations  contained  therein,2 
but  I  have  gleaned  them  from  the  words  of  the  wise  occurring  in 
the  Midrashim,  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  other  of  their  works, 
as  well  as  from  the  words  of  the  philosophers,  ancient  and 
recent,  and  also  from  the  works  of  various  authors,3  as  one 


1  I.  e.,  the  verses  of  Abot. 

2  See  H.  Malter,  Shem  Tob  Joseph  Palquera,  in  JQ R  (new  series),  vol.  I, 
p.  163,  n.  21. 

3  The  "ancient"  philosophers  upon  whom  M.  drew,  although  not  always 
from  the   sources   (see  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  345,  n.  4;  Rosin,  Ethik,   p.  5, 
n.  4),  are  Socrates,  Plato,  the  Stoics,  especially  Aristotle  (see  Introduction, 
p.  5,  n.  2),  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias  (Moreh,  I,  31;  II,  3),  and  Themistius 
(Ibid.,  I,  71).    By  the  "recent"  philosophers  M.  means  Abu  Nasr  al-Farabi 
(Ibid.,  I,  73,  74;  II,  15,  18,  19;  III,  18),  Ibn  Sina,  al-Gazzali,  Abu  Bekr  Ibn 
al-Zaig  (Ibid.,  I,  74;  II,  24  twice;  III,  29),  but  hardly  Ibn  Roshd  (Averroes). 
The   "works   of  various   authors"    refers    to  the  ethical   writings  of  M.'s 
Jewish  predecessors,   among  whom  were  Saadia,  Ibn  Gabirol,  Bahya,  Bar 
Hiya,  Ibn  Zaddik,  Yehudah  ha-Levi,  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  and  Ibn  Daud. 
See  M.'s  Letter  to  Ibn  Tibbon,  in  Kobe?   Teshubot  ha-Rambam,  II,  28b; 
Munk,  Ibid.,  I,  p.  107,  n.  1 ;  p.  345,  n.'  4;  p.  433,  n.  2;  434,  n.  4;  III,  p.  417, 
n.  2,  and  p.  438,  n.  4;  Beer,  Rabbi  Moses  ben  Maimon  pp.  47-50;  Geiger, 
Nachgelassene  Schriften,  III,  Moses  ben  Maimon,  p.  41 ;  Kaufmann,  Attri- 
butenlehre,  p.  324,  n.  186;  Rosin,  Ibid.,  pp.  5-25,  96,  n.  3;  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel, 
Introduction,  XII-XIII;  Cohen,  Charakteristik,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I  p.  79; 
in  JE,  articles  on  the  Greek,  Arabic,  and  Jewish  philosophers  mentioned 
in  this  note,  and  article  by  I.  Broyde,  Arabic  Philosophy— Its  Influence 
on  Judaism,  II,  p.  58.    On  M.'s  relation  to  Ibn  Roshd,  see  Munk,  Notice 
sur  Joseph  ben-Jehouda,  p.  31,  and  n.  1;  Steinschneider,  Catal.  Bodl.,  Moses 

Maimonides. 

c* 


36 

should  accept  the  truth  from  whatever  source  it  proceeds.1 
Sometimes,  I  may  give  a  statement  in  full,  word  for  word  in 
the  author's  own  language,  but  there  is  no  harm  in  this,  and 
it  is  not  done  with  the  intention  of  glorifying  myself  by  pre- 
senting as  my  own  something  that  was  said  by  others  before 
me,  since  I  have  just  confessed  (my  indebtedness  to  others), 
even  though  I  do  not  say  "so  and  so  said",  which  would  ne- 
cessitate useless  prolixity.  Sometimes,  too,  the  mentioning  of 
the  name  of  the  authority  drawn  upon  might  lead  one  who 
lacks  insight  to  believe  that  the  statement  quoted  is  faulty,  and 
wrong  in  itself,  because  he  does  not  understand  it.  Therefore, 
I  prefer  not  to  mention  the  authority,  for  my  intention  is  only 
to  be  of  service  to  the  reader,  and  to  elucidate  for  him  the 
thoughts  hidden  in  this  tractate.  I  shall  now  begin  the 
chapters,  which,  in  accordance  with  my  intention,  are  to  serve 
here  as  an  introduction,  which  is  to  consist  of  eight  chapters. 

1  See  Jaraczewski,  Die  Ethik  des  Maimonides,  etc.,  in  ZPhKr.,  XL VI, 
p.  9;  and  H.  Malter,  Ibid.,  p.  169,  n.  31. 


CHAPTER  I 

CONCERNING  THE  HUMAN  SOUL  AND  ITS  FACULTIES* 

KNOW  that  the  human  soul  is  one,2  but  that  it  has  many 
diversified  activities.  Some  of  these  activities  have,  indeed,  been 
called  souls,  which  has  given  rise  to  the  opinion  that  man  has 
many  souls,  as  was  the  belief  of  the  physicians,  with  the  result 
that  the  most  distinguished  of  them3  states  in  the  introduction 
of  his  book  that  there  are  three  souls,  the  physical,  the  vital, 
and  the  psychical.4  These  activities  are  called  faculties  and 

*  For  a  discussion  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Scheyer,  Psychol. 
Syst.  d.  Maim.,  c.  I;   Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr.,  XL VI,  pp.  9 — 10;  and  Rosin, 
Ethik,  p.  45  ff.    A  summary  of  the  Perakim  is  found  in  Speier,  The  Three- 
fold Cord  (London,  1891),  Appendix. 

2  In  Moreh,  I,  41,  M.  explains  the  term  soul  (B>D3)  as  being  "  the  vital- 
ity which  is  common  to  all  sentient  beings."  Cf.  Aristotle,  De  Anima, 
c.  1  (ed.  Hicks,  pp.  50  and  51),  "Hence  soul  is  the  first  actuality  of  a 
natural  body  having  in  it  the  capacity  of  life."  On  the  homonymous  use 
of  the  word  WBi,  see  Moreh,  loc.  cit. 

*  Hippocrates,  the  creator  of  medical  science.    See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  45; 
Wolff,  Acht  Oapitel,  p.  1,  n.  2;  M.  Schloessinger,  in  JE.,  VI,  p.  403. 

*  M.  opposes  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  three  souls,  but  uses  this 
classification  to  designate  a  threefold  division  of  the  soul's  faculties,  al- 
though, later  in  this  chapter  (see  infra,  pp.  38 — 39),  he  divides  the  faculties  into 
five  classes.    In  Moreh,  III,  12,  he  points  to  the  threefold  division  of  the 
faculties,  where   he   says,    "all  physical,   psychical,  and  vital   forces   and 
organs  that  are  possessed  by  one  individual  are  found  also  in  the  other 
individuals."   See,  also,  ibid.,  Ill,  46  (end),  where  the  appetitive  (mttnn),  the 
vital  (JViVnn),  and  the  psychic  (rfH&BJn)  faculties  are  enumerated.    Bahya, 
Ibn  Gabirol,  and  Ibn  Zaddik  seem  to  have  believed  in  the  existence  of 
three  souls  in  man.    See  I.  Broyde  in  JE.,  vol.  xi,  art.  Soul.    Abraham 
ibn  Daud,  in  Emunah  Ramah,  I,  6  (ed.  Weil,  1842),  also,  opposed  the  belief 
of  the  physicians,  supporting  the  Aristotelian  view  of  the  unity  of  the  soul, 
as  did  M.     Consult  Scheyer,  Psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim.,  p.  11,  n.  3;  Munk, 
Guide,  I,  p.  355,  n.  1;  idem,  Melanges,  p.  38,  n.  1;  p.  40,  n.  3;  p.  54,  n.  2; 
Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  45,  n.  1;  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  p.  398,  n.  60. 


38  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

parts,  so  that  the  phrase  "parts  of  the  soul,"  frequently  employed 
by  philosophers,  is  commonly  used.  By  the  word  "parts",  how- 
ever, they  do  not  intend  to  imply  that  the  soul  is  divided  into 
parts  as  are  bodies,  but  they  merely  enumerate  the  different 
activities  of  the  soul  as  being  parts  of  a  whole,  the  union  of 
which  makes  up  the  soul. 

Thou  knowest  that  the  improvement  of  the  moral  qualities 
is  brought  about  by  the  healing  of  the  soul  and  its  activities.1 
Therefore,  just  as  the  physician,  who  endeavors  to  cure  the 
human  body,  must  have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  it  in  its  entirety 
and  its  individual  parts,  just  as  he  must  know  what  causes 
sickness  that  it  may  be  avoided,  and  must  also  be  acquainted 
with  the  means  by  which  a  patient  may  be  cured,  so,  likewise, 
he  who  tries  to  cure  the  soul,  wishing  to  improve  the  moral 
qualities,  must  have  a  knowledge  of  the  soul  in  its  totality  and 
its  parts,  must  know  how  to  prevent  it  from  becoming  diseased, 
and  how  to  maintain  its  health.2 

So,  I  say  that  the  soul  has  five  faculties;  the  nutritive  [also 
known  as  the  "growing"  faculty],  the  sensitive,  the  imaginative, 


1  The  phrase,   the  improvement  of  the  moral  qualities  (nvran  Jipfi,  Ar. 
p«!?5«^«  riN^SK),  is  one  which  M.  probably  borrowed  from  Ibn  Gabirol,  author 
of  Tikkun  Middot  ha-Nefesh  (The  Improvement  of  the  Moral  Qualities)  to 
designate  the  practical  task  of  ethics.     Cf.  Rosin,  Ethik,  pp.  12,  37,  n.  5. 
M.  is  not  concerned  with  a  theoretical  discussion  of  ethics,  but  with  the 
problem  as  to  how  one's  moral  qualities  are  to  be  improved,  which  is  a 
practical  question.    Therefore,  the  science  of  curing  the  soul  is  to  him  as 
practical  as  is  that  of  healing  the  body.    What  Aristotle  says  in  Eth.  Nic., 
II,  2  may  well  apply  here.    "Since,  then,  the  object  of  the  present  treatise 
is  not  mere  speculation,  as  it  is  of  some  others  (for  we  are  inquiring  not 
merely  that  we  may  know  what  virtue  is,  but  that  we  may  become  virtuous, 
else  it  would  be  useless),  we  must  consider  as  to  the  particular  actions 
how  we  are  to  do  them,  because,   as  we  have  just  said,  the  character  of 
the  habits  that  shall  be  formed  depends  on  these." 

2  Philo,  too,  speaks  of  a  physician  of  the  soul  (Quod  Omnis  Probus 
Liber,  I,  2).    Cf.  Eth.  Nic.,  I,  12,  where  Aristotle  states  that  it  is  necessary 
for  the  Politician  (moralist)  to  have  a  certain  knowledge  of  the  nature 
of  the  soul,  just  as  it  is  for  the  oculist  to  have  a  knowledge  of  the  whole 
body,  and  in  fact  more  so,  as  Politics  (ethics)  is  more  important  than  the 
healing  art. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— I  39 

the  appetitive,  and  the  rational.1  We  have  already  stated 
in  this  chapter  that  our  words  concern  themselves  only  with  the 
human  soul;  for  the  nutritive  faculty  by  which  man  is  nourished 
is  not  the  same,  for  instance,  as  that  of  the  ass  or  the  horse. 
Man  is  sustained  by  the  nutritive  faculty  of  the  human  soul, 
the  ass  thrives  by  means  of  the  nutritive  faculty  of  its  soul, 
and  the  palm-tree2  flourishes  by  the  nutritive  faculty  peculiar 
to  its  soul.  Although  we  apply  the  same  term  nutrition  to  all 
of  them  indiscriminately,  nevertheless,  its  signification  is  by  no 
means  the  same.  In  the  same  way,  the  term  sensation  is  used 
homonymously 3  for  man  and  beast;  not  with  the  idea,  however, 


1  M.  agrees  with  Aristotle  as  to  the  number  of  the  divisions  of  the 
faculties  of  the  soul,  but  instead  of  the  latter's  faculty  of  motion,  has  that 
of  imagination.     5wd/j.ea  8'  etiropev  ^pfirTixbv  (}in),   6peicnK6t>  (TWriOn),  ai<r§r)ruc6i> 
(B^iltan),  KivT)riKbv  KO.T&  rbmov,  5iavoriTu<6i>  (^5tWl).    De  Anima,  II,  3,  ed.  Hicks, 
pp.  58  and  59.    M.'s  division  is  preferable  to  that  of  Aristotle,  motion  being 
subservient  to  the  appetitive  and  the  rational  faculties,  as  Aristotle  himself 
states  (De  Motu  Animalium,  chaps.  6  and  8).    M.  considers  motion,  espe- 
cially that  of  the  limbs  of  the  body,  to  be  dependent  upon  the  appetitive 
faculty  (see  infra,  p.  43),  and  to  be  "an  accident  pertaining  to  living  things" 
(Moreh,  I,  26).    Of.,  also,  ibid.  I,  46  (n  pn  mptt  ^3K  Tin  Dxutt  ny«  jmnnff); 
and  Aristotle,  Physics,  V,  2.    See  Scheyer,  Psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim.,  p.  11, 
n.  3;  p.  14,  n.  4.  Al-Farabi  (niKSwn  m!?nnn,  in  epDHH  IBD,  Leipzig,  1849,  p.  2) 
divides  the  faculties  as  follows :  nonon  nsni  rumen  rDm(^3»n  of  M.)rnnon  ran 
BPjnion  nsni.   In  making  his  division,  M.  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  the  divi- 
sions   of  Aristotle   and   al-Farabi.     By   adding  the   nutritive  faculty  (jtn), 
which  Aristotle  includes  in  his  list,  to  the  list  of  al-Farabi  we  have  M.'s 
list.    See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  47,  n.  4. 

2  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  I,  p.  9,  n.  9. 

3  n»n  *|in»a;  Ar.  DDN^K  -jN-intPfcO,  homonymously,  i.  e.  the  participation 
of  two   things   in   the   same  name.    In  Millot  ha-Higgayon,   c.  XII,    M. 
defines  this  term  as  follows.     "If  a  noun  has  a  number  of  significations 

it  is  a  homonym The  word  ^y,  which  is  used  to  designate  the 

eye  which  sees,  and  a  fountain,  is  a  homonym.    The  common  or  appelative 
noun  (see  Munk,  Guide,  I,  Introd.,  p.  6,  n.  2)  designates  something  common 
to  two  or  more  things,  and  by  such  a  word  we  recognize,  as  regards  each 
of  these  things,  the  class  to  which  it  belongs  on  account  of  the  conception 
of  the  thing  which  each  shares  in  common,  as,  for  instance,    the   word 
living  (Tl)  which  is  applied  to  a  man,  a  horse,  a  scorpion,  and  a  fish;  for 
life,  which  consists  of  nutrition  and  sensation,  is  a  common  possession  of 
each  one  of  these  species."    In  this  sense,  the  words  nutrition  (]NJ)  and 


40  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

that  the  sensation  of  one  species  is  the  same  as  that  of  another, 
for  each  species  has  its  own  characteristic  soul  distinct  from 
every  other,  with  the  result  that  there  necessarily  arises  from 
each  soul  activities  peculiar  to  itself.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  an  activity  of  one  soul  may  seem  to  be  similar  to  that  of 
another,  in  consequence  of  which  one  might  think  that  both 
belong  to  the  same  class,  and  thus  consider  them  to  be  alike;  but 
such  is  not  the  case. 

By  way  of  elucidation,  let  us  imagine  that  three  dark  places 
are  illumined,  one  lit  up  by  the  sun  shining  upon  it,  the  second 
by  the  moon,  and  the  third  by  a  flame.  Now,  in  each  of  these 
places  there  is  light,  but  the  efficient  cause  in  the  one  case  is 
the  sun,  in  the  other  the  moon,  and  in  the  third  the  fire.  So 
it  is  with  sensation  and  its  causes.  In  man  it  is  the  human 
soul,  in  the  ass  it  is  the  soul  of  the  ass,  and  in  the  eagle,  the 
soul  of  the  eagle.  These  sensations  have,  moreover,  nothing  in 
common,  except  the  homonymous  term  which  is  applied  to  them. 
Mark  well  this  point,  for  it  is  very  important,  as  many  so-called 
philosophers  have  fallen  into  error  regarding  it,  in  consequence 
of  which  they  have  been  driven  to  absurdities  and  fallacies. 

Returning  to  our  subject  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul,  let  me 
say  that  the  nutritive  faculty  consists  of  (1)  the  power  of  at- 
tracting nourishment  to  the  body,  (2)  the  retention  of  the  same, 
(3)  its  digestion  (assimilation),  (4)  the  repulsion  of  superfluities, 
(5)  growth,  (6)  procreation,  and  (7)  the  differentiation  of  the 
nutritive  juices  that  are  necessary  for  sustenance  from  those 
which  are  to  be  expelled.1  The  detailed  discussion  of  these 
seven  faculties — the  means  by  which  and  how  they  perform  their 
functions,  in  which  members  of  the  body  their  operations  are 
most  visible  and  perceptible,  which  of  them  are  always  present, 
and  which  disappear  within  a  given  time — belongs  to  the  science 
of  medicine,  and  need  not  be  taken  up  here. 

The  faculty  of  sensation  consists  of  the  five  well-known  senses 

sensation  (tf'ilfi)  are  homonyms.  See  Munk,  Guide,  I,  Introd.,  p.  6,  notes 
2  and  3;  and  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  pp.  420,  n.  91,  460,  n.  148,  461, 
n.  149. 

1  The  first  four  of  these  powers  are  discussed  with  more  detail  in 
Moreh,  I,  72.  See  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  367,  n.  6. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— I  41 

of  seeing,  hearing,  tasting,  smelling,  and  feeling,  the  last  of 
which  is  found  over  the  whole  surface  of  the  body,  not  being 
confined  to  any  special  member,  as  are  the  other  four  faculties. 
The  imagination  is  that  faculty  which  retains  impressions  of 
things  perceptible  to  the  mind,  after  they  have  ceased  to  affect 
directly,  the  senses  which  conceived  them.  This  faculty,  com- 
bining some  of  these  impressions  and  separating  others  from 
one  another,  thus  constructs  out  of  originally  perceived  ideas 
some  of  which  it  has  never  received  any  impression,  and  which 
it  could  not  possibly  have  perceived.  For  instance,  one  may 
imagine  an  iron  ship  floating  in  the  air,  or  a  man  whose  head 
reaches  the  heaven  and  whose  feet  rest  on  the  earth,  or  an 
animal  with  a  thousand  eyes,  and  many  other  similar  impossi- 
bilties  which  the  imagination  may  construct  and  endow  with 
an  existence  that  is  fanciful.1  In  this  regard,  the  Mutakallimun11 

1  M.  defines  imagination  in  Moreh,  I,  73,  Tenth  Proposition,  Note.  It 
is  the  opposite  of  the  intellect  which  "analyzes  and  divides  the  component 
parts  of  things,  it  forms  abstract  ideas  of  them,  represents  them  in  their 
true  form  as  well  as  in  their  causal  relations,  derives  from  one  object  a 
great  many  facts,  which — for  the  intellect — totally  differ  from  each  other, 
just  as  two  human  individuals  appear  different  to  the  imagination;  it 
distinguishes  that  which  is  the  property  of  the  genus  from  that  which  is 
peculiar  to  the  individual, — and  no  proof  is  correct  unless  founded  on  the 
former;  the  intellect  further  determines  whether  certain  qualities  of  a 
thing  are  essential  or  non-essential.  Imagination  has  none  of  these  functions. 
It  only  perceives  the  individual,  the  compound  in  that  aggregate  condition 
in  which  it  presents  itself  to  the  senses;  or  it  combines  things  which 
exist  separately,  joins  some  of  them  together,  and  represents  them  all  as 
one  body  or  as  a  force  of  the  body.  Hence  it  is  that  some  imagine  a 
man  with  a  horse's  head,  or  with  wings,  etc.  This  is  called  a  fiction,  a 
phantasm;  it  is  a  thing  to  which  nothing  in  the  actual  world  corresponds. 
Nor  can  imagination  in  any  way  obtain  a  purely  immaterial  image  of  an 
object,  however  abstract  the  form  of  the  image  may  be.  Imagination 
yields,  therefore,  no  test  for  the  reality  of  a  thing."  Further  (ibid.  II,  36) 
it  is  stated  that  part  of  the  functions  of  the  imagination  is  to  retain  im- 
pressions by  the  senses,  to  combine  them,  and  chiefly  to  form  images. 
The  most  perfect  developement  of  the  imaginative  faculty  results  in 
prophecy.  See  infra,  p.  47,  and  n.  3. 

a  The  Mutakallimun  were  a  sect  of  dogmatic  or  religious  philosophers 
who  tried  to  harmonize  Mohammedan  theology  with  Aristotelian  philosophy. 
Starting  with  the  "word  of  God"  (kaJdm,  A6-yos),  as  contained  in  the  Koran, 


42  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

have  fallen  into  grievous  and  pernicious  error,  as  a  result  of 
which  their  false  theories  form  the  corner-stone  of  a  sophistical 
system  which  divides  things  into  the  necessary,  the  possible,  and 
the  impossible;  so  that  they  believe,  and  have  led  others  to 
believe,  that  all  creations  of  the  imagination  are  possible,  not 
having  in  mind,  as  we  have  stated,  that  this  faculty  may  at- 
tribute existence  to  that  which  cannot*  possibly  exist.1 

The  appetitive  is  that  faculty  by  which  a  man  desires,  or 
loathes  a  thing,  and  from  which  there  arise  the  following 

they  endeavored  to  reconcile  revelation  with  philosophy.  I.  T.,  in  his 
Glossary  of  Strange  Words,  harshly  criticizes  them  as  "a  sect  of  pseudo- 
scientists  without  wisdom."  T.  J.  De  Boer  says  of  their  system  of  philo- 
sophy, "An  assertion,  expressed  in  logical  or  dialectic  fashion,  whether 
verbal  or  written,  was  called  by  the  Arabs, — generally,  but  more  particularly 
in  religious  teaching—  Kalam  (A6yoj),  and  those  who  advanced  such 
assertions  were  called  Mutakallimun.  The  name  was  transferred  from  the 
individual  assertion  to  the  entire  system,  and  it  covered  also  the  intro- 
ductory, elementary  observations  on  Method, — and  so  on.  Our  best  de- 
signation for  the  science  of  the  Kalam  is  'Theological  Dialectics'  or 
simply  'Dialectics',  and  in  what  follows  we  may  translate  Mutakallimun 
by  'Dialecticians',"  Geschichte  der  Philosophic  im  Islam,  Stuttgart,  1901, 
p.  43  ff.;  Eng.  ed.,  London,  1903,  pp.  42-43.  To  M.  we  are  indebted  for 
a  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the  system  of  the  Mutakallimun,  which  he 
describes  in  a  masterly  way  in  his  famous  attack  on  the  Kalam  (Moreh, 
I,  71 — 76).  He  is  vehemently  opposed  to  them,  not  because  of  the  views  they 
held  in  regard  to  the  universe  and  God,  many  of  which  coincided  with 
his  own,  but  on  account  of  the  method  they  pursued  in  arriving  at  their 
conclusions.  On  the  Mutakallimun,  and  the  Kalam,  see  Yehudah  ha-Levi, 
Cuzari,  c.  V;  Munk,  Melanges,  pp.  311-312,  318 if.;  idem,  article  Arabes, 
in  Dictionnaire  des  Sciences  philosophiques ;  idem,  Notice  sur  R.  Saadia 
Gaon,  p.  156 ff.;  idem,  Guide,  I,  p.  335,  n.  2;  Steinschneider,  Heb.  Lit., 
p.  117;  idem,  HUb.,  p.  415;  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  see  index;  M.  Gut- 
mann,  Das  Religionsphil.  Syst.  d.  Mutakallimun  nach  der  Berichte  des  Mai- 
mun,  Leipzig,  1885;  Ludwig  Stein,  in  AGPh.,  vol.'  XI,  pp.  330-334; 
Schreiner,  Der  Kalam  in  der  judischen  Literatur,  Berlin,  1895;  S.  Horo- 
vitz,  in  ZDMG,  57,  p.  177 ff.;  I.  Goldziher,  Vorlesungen  uber  den  Islam, 
(Heidelberg,  1910),  p.  100  f.;  127  f.;  129;  172  f.;  177  f.;  etc. 

1  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  73,  Tenth  Proposition,  in  which  M.  describes  the  theory 
of  admissibility  of  the  Mutakallimun,  which  forms  the  principal  support 
of  their  doctrine  (n&Dn  lies  inn  irror  IPX  rra»nn  n«»  NTI  rrw»n  nonpnn 
D^aion).  Everything  conceived  by  the  imagination,  they  maintain,  is  ad- 
mitted as  possible.  Cf.,  also,  ibid.,  I,  49;  III,  15.  See  Scheyer,  Psychol. 
Syst.  d.  Maim.,  pp.  12-13;  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  400,  n.  2. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— I  43 

activities:  the  pursuit  of  an  object  or  flight  from  it,  inclination 
and  avoidance,  anger  and  affection,  fear  and  courage,  cruelty 
and  compassion,  love  and  hate,  and  many  other  similar  psychic 
qualities.1  All  parts  of  the  hody  are  subservient  to  these  ac- 
tivities, as  the  ability  of  the  hand  to  grasp,  that  of  the  foot  to 
walk,  that  of  the  eye  to  see,  and  that  of  the  heart  to  make 
one  bold  or  timid.  Similarily,  the  other  members  of  the  body, 
whether  external  or  internal,  are  instruments  of  the  appetitive 
faculty.* 

Reason,  that  faculty  peculiar  to  man,  enables  him  to  under- 
stand, reflect,  acquire  knowledge  of  the  sciences,  and  to  discriminate 
between  proper  and  improper  actions.3  Its  functions  are  partly 
practical  and  partly  speculative  (theoretical),  the  practical  being,  in 
turn,  either  mechanical  or  intellectual.  By  means  of  the  spe- 
culative power,  man  knows  things  as  they  really  are,  and  which, 
by  their  nature,  are  not  subject  to  change.  These  are  called 
the  sciences4  in  general.  The  mechanical  power  is  that  by 


onp&n,  psychic  accidents.  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  51.  "It  is  a  self- 
evident  fact  that  the  attribute  is  not  inherent  in  the  object  to  which  it 
is  ascribed,  but  it  is  superadded  to  its  essence,  and  is  consequently  an  ac- 
cident." See,  also,  ibid.,  I,  73.  Fourth  Proposition.  With  M.'s  description 
of  the  appetitive  faculty  compare  that  of  al-Farabi,  in  niNSDJn  JY6nrn,  p.  2: 
i«  ,UDD  man?  1«  lain  ppanso  rvaruMn  rmwnnn  ,T.T  na  w«  ton  m-njnsm 
nsnvn  ,na'«m  wnm  ,nan«m  n«:»n  IT.T  iai  ,inp'riT»  i«  ,inDK&n»  IN  irn«rv» 
.»Bjn  npa  n«Bn  nw&mm  nmoNm  ,pvn  warn  ,]inttani 

2  Cf.  Moreh,I,46 •.  tfsan  m^»s^  D^D  D^ID  "o-'isni  nno  nmjn  nnx  no«n  0^12  o^an 
'D1  niB^nnDn.    All  the   organs    of  the  body    are    employed  in  the  various 
actions  of  the  soul.    Cf.  Aristotle,  De  Anima,  III,  10,  ed.  Hicks,  pp.  152 
and  153. 

3  Cf.  Millot  ha-Higgayon,  c.  XIV  (beg.) :  "The  word  dibbur  as  used  by 
former   philosophers    of   cultured   nations,   is    a    homonym   having    three 
significations.     In  the   first   place,    it   is    used   to    designate    that  power 
peculiar  to  man  by  which  he  forms  conceptions,  acquires  a  knowledge  of 
the   sciences,    and   differentiates   between    the  proper   and  the  improper. 
This   is    called   the  reasoning  faculty  or  soul."    Cf.  Ibn  Daud,  Emunah 
Ramah,  I,  6. 

4  CLEth.Nic.,  VI,  3:  "What  science  is  is  plain  from  the  following  con- 
siderations,  if   one  is  to  speak  accurately,  instead  of  being  led  away  by 
resemblances.   For  we  all  conceive  that  what  we  scientifically  know  cannot 
be  otherwise  than  it  is So,  then,  whatever  comes   within  the 


44  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

which  the  arts,  such  as  architecture,  agriculture,  medicine,  and 
navigation  are  acquired.1  The  intellectual  power  is  that  by 
which  one,  when  he  intends  to  do  an  act,  reflects  upon  what 
he  has  premeditated,  considers  the  possibility  of  performing  it, 
and,  if  he  thinks  it  possible,  decides  how  it  should  be  done.2 

This  is  all  we  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  say  in  this  regard 
concerning  the  soul.  Know,  however,  that  the  soul,  whose  facul- 
ties and  parts  we  have  described  above,  and  which  is  a  unit, 
may  be  compared  to  matter  in  that  it  likewise  has  a  form, 
which  is  reason.  If  the  form  (reason)  does  not  communicate  its 
impression  to  the  soul,  then  the  disposition  existing  in  the  soul 
to  receive  that  form  is  of  no  avail,  and  exists  to  no  purpose, 
as  Solomon  says,  "Also  in  the  want  of  knowledge  in  the  soul 
there  is  nothing  good".3  This  means  that  if  a  soul  has  not 


range  of  science  is  by  necessity,  and  therefore  eternal — because  all  things 
are  so  which  exist  necessarily — and  all  eternal  things  are  without  be- 
ginning, and  indestructible." 

1  Of.  Millot  ha-Higgayon,  loc.  cit.:  ibw  *)np&  DB>  n^npn  to«  nsK^O  Dwm 

neon  to  i«tp"i  ,DTOs6Dn  nwem  to  to  p  Di  ini^S'i  mvp  neon  to  to 
,-DNbei  ]nb  nfivw  n»i  rvasnm  nniano  nnx  to  ixip^i  ,mv9  naxbc  K'-BiDi^sn. 
Of.,  also,  Eth.  Nic.  VI,  4,  on  "Art." 

2  With  M.'s  definition  of  the  rational  faculty  compare  that  of  al-Farabi 
(niNSDin  nibnnn,  p.  2) :  Dos^oni  nmann  mxn  \w  n  n»«  «in  inon  nani. 
See    Rosin,    Ethik,  p.  47,  n.  4;    Kaufmann,    Attributenlehre,    p.  398,    and 
note  60.      On  this  faculty  and  its  functions,  see  Scheyer,  Psychol.  Syst.  d. 
Maim.,   pp.   14-29;    Rosin,   Ethik,    pp.    49-51,   and    Wolff,   Acht   Capitel, 
p.  7,  n.  1. 

The  following  scheme  will  elucidate  the  divisions   of  the  functions  of 
the  rational  faculty,  according  to  M. 

Reason  Ctopn  nan  ,nmn  nsn  ,rn:non  ts>Bjn ; 
Ar. 


Practical  ("WD;  Ar."^ey)  Theoretical  Oil"?  ^n-'iv 


Mechanical  (ni2»no  nDS^a     Intellectual  ("atyntt  ;    Sciences  (nitsDn;  Ar.  Dito); 
^"IWD  rott'jO;  Ar. 

Ar.  "3,10) 

Architecture,  etc. 
Prov.  XIX,  2. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— I  45 

attained  a  form  but  remains  without  intelligence,  its  existence 
is  not  a  good  one.1  However,  this  is  not  the  place  for  us  to 
discuss  such  problems  as  that  of  form,  matter,  and  the  number 
of  different  kinds  of  intelligence,  and  their  means  of  acquisition;2 
nor  is  it  necessary  for  what  we  have  to  say  concerning  the 
subject  of  ethics,  but  is  more  appropriately  to  be  discussed  in 
the  Book  on  Prophecy,  which  we  mention  (elsewhere).3 
Now  I  conclude  this  chapter,  and  begin  the  next. 

1  M.  considers  matter  and  form  in  the  Aristotelian  sense.    The  prin- 
cipia  of  all  existing,  transient  things  are  matter,  form,  and  the  absence 
of  a  particular  form  (Moreh,  I,  17).     Matter  (ittin  ,fnNB,  ^  6X17)  consists 
of  the  underlying,  basic  substance   of  a  thing,  which  has  a  potential  but 
not  a  real  existence,  its   true  nature  consisting  in  the  property  of  never 
being  without  a  disposition  to  receive  a  form  (ibid.,  Ill,  8).    Every  sub- 
stance is  endowed  with  a  form  (mis,  finis,  TO  etSos),  or  incoporeal  being 
(ibid.,  II,  12),  by  means  of  which  that  substance  is  what  it  is.    That  is, 
through  form  that  which  is  potentially  in  existence  comes  into  real  exi- 
stence (Aristotle,  Physics,  II,  3;  Metaphysics,  I,  3),  and  upon  it  the  reality 
and  essence  of  a  thing  depend.    When  the  form  is  destroyed,  the  thing's 
existence  is  terminated  (Moreh,  III,  69).     As    soon   as   a   substance  has 
received  a  certain  form,  the  absence  or  privation  (Twnn,  ms^N)  of  that 
form  which  it  has  just  received  has  ceased,  and  it  is  replaced  by  the  privation 
of   another   form,   and   so   on  with  all  possible  forms   (ibid.,  I,  17).    Of. 
Aristotle,  Physics,  I,  5-7;   also  )n  nil,  c.  IX.    Matter  is  constantly  seeking 
to  cast  off  the  form  it  has  in  order  to  receive  another,  and  so  form  does 
not  remain  permanently  in  a  substance.    M.  aptly  compares  matter  to  a 
faithless  wife,  who,   although  not  being   without  a  husband,  continually 
seeks  another  man  in  his  place  (Moreh,  III,  8).    The  soul,  according  to 
Aristotle,  is  the  form  of  the  body  which,  as  matter,  has  merely  a  potential- 
ity for  existence.   See  supra,  p.  37,  n.  2.   He  says,  "It  must  follow,  then,  that 
soul  is  substance  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  form  of  a  natural  body  having 
in  it  the  capacity  of  life."    (De  Anima,  II,  1,  ed.  Hicks,  pp.  48  and  49). 
M.  agrees  with  this,  and  says  in  Tesode  ha-Torah,  IV,  8.     "The  soul  of 
all  flesh  is  its  form  which  God  has  given  it."    The  human  soul,  however, 
needs  in  turn  a  form  in  order  that  it  may  become  a  reality.    The  soul's 
form  is,  as   M.  states  here,  reason  (^3tf,  ^pP,  vovi),  or  more  definitely  the 
acquired  reason  (napan  bst?;   see  Scheyer,  Psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim.,  c.  Ill; 
also  p.  59,  note  E;  p.  65  ff.,  especially  p.  66),   and  it  this  that  makes  man 
what  he  is.     Cf.  Moreh,  I,  7.    "It  is  acknowledged  that  a  man  who  does 
not  possess  this  form, is  no  man." 

2  See  Moreh,  I,  68;   Scheyer,  ibid.,  c.  II,  c.  Ill,  and  especially  Munk, 
Guide,  I,  pp.  304-308,  note. 

3  In  Perek  Helek,  Seventh  Article  of  Faith  (Holzer,  Dogmenlehre,  p.  24; 


46 

I.  Friedlaender,  Arabic  Writings  of  M.,  p.  32),  M.  mentions  his  intention 
of  writing  a  Book  on  Prophecy  and  a  Book  of  Harmony  (ifflN  PP3K  "p'B^ 
•si  13  porno  "i«w  nNttan  nans  IN  wro11  i»«  rwnn  wiTsa  DK  iDipe^),  for  the 
purpose  of  elucidating  the  exoteric  lessons  of  the  prophets  and  of  the 
Midrashim.  After  having  started,  however,  he  abandoned  this  intention, 
and  later  incorporated  the  material  for  the  Book  on  Prophecy  in  the  Moreh, 
Part  II,  in  chapters  32  to  48,  and  that  of  the  Book  of  Harmony  (HBD 
TTKIOTin)  he  scattered  throughout  the  Moreh.  See  Moreh,  I,  Introd.;  Bloch, 
Charakteristik  und  Inhaltsangabe  des  Moreh  Nebuchim,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon, 
I,  pp.  7,  8  and  15. 


CHAPTER  II 

CONCERNING  THE  TRANSGRESSIONS  OF  THE 

FACULTIES  OF  THE  SOUL  AND  THE  DESIGNATION 

OF  THOSE  FACULTIES  WHICH  ARE  THE  SEAT  OF 

THE  VIRTUES  AND  THE  VICES  t 

KNOW  that  transgressions  and  observances  of  the  Law  have 
their  origin  only  in  two  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul,  namely, 
the  sensitive 2  and  the  appetitive,  and  that  to  these  two  faculties 
alone  are  to  be  ascribed  all  transgressions  and  observances. 
The  faculties  of  nutrition  and  imagination  do  not  give  rise  to 
observance  or  transgression,  for  in  connection  with  neither  is 
there  any  conscious  or  voluntary  act.  That  is,  man  cannot 
consciously  suspend  their  functions,  nor  can  he  curtail  any  one 
of  their  activities.  The  proof  of  this  is  that  the  functions  of 
both  these  faculties,  the  nutritive  and  the  imaginative,  continue 
to  be  operative  when  one  is  asleep,  which  is  not  true  of  any 
other  of  the  soul's  faculties.3 


1  For  a  discussion  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Scheyer,  Psychol. 
Syst.  d.  Maim.,  p.  102  ff. ;  Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr.,  XL VI  p.  10;  and  Rosin, 
Ethik,  p.  54  ff.  On  the  title,  see  Hebrew  text,  c.  II,  p.  14,  n.  1  and  2. 

J  In  ascribing  transgressions  and  observances  to  the  faculty  of  sensation, 
M.  differs  from  Aristotle  who  asserts  that  sense  is  the  originating  cause 
of  no  moral  action,  since  brutes,  too,  are  possessed  of  sense-,  but  are  in  no 
ways  partakers  of  moral  actions  (Eth.  Nic.,  VT,  2).  M.,  however,  draws  a 
distinction  between  the  sensitive  faculty  of  man  and  that  of  animals.  Sen- 
sation as  applied  to  man  and  beast  is  a  honionymous  term,  the  sensitive 
faculty  of  man  being  different  from  that  of  all  other  animate  beings.  See 
supra,  c.  I,  pp.  39 — 40. 

3  M.  differs  from  al-Farabi  who  ascribes  participation  in  moral  and  im- 
moral acts  to  all  the  faculties  of  the  soul  (rrtiTCDin  rv6nnn,  p.  35  ff.).  The 


48  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

As  regards  the  rational  faculty,  uncertainty  prevails  (among 
philosophers)  *,  but  I  maintain  that  observance  and  transgression 
may  also  originate  in  this  faculty,  in  so  far  as  one  believes  a 
true  or  a  false  doctrine,  though  no  action  which  may  be  de- 
signated as  an  observance  or  a  transgression  results  there- 
from.2 Consequently,  as  I  said  above,  these  two  faculties  (the 


latter,  however,  does  not  consider  nutrition  to  be  one  of  the  faculties. 
Abraham  ibn  Daud,  including  nutrition  among  the  soul's  faculties,  allots 
to  each  a  cardinal  virtue  (Emunah  Ramah,  III,  p.  110).  Aristotle  excludes 
the  imagination  as  one  of  the  faculties  directly  affecting  the  performance 
of  virtues,  but  considers  it  as  producing  movement  through  the  agency 
of  appetency  (De  Anima,  III,  10).  M.,  later,  departs  somewhat  from  the 
view  he  holds  in  the  Perdkim  regarding  the  imagination,  and,  in  agreement 
with  Aristotle,  considers  it  to  be  bound  up  indirectly,  through  the  appeti- 
tive faculty,  with  conscious  activity  (see  Scheyer,  ibid.,  pp.  98,  and  105). 
This  is  the  sense  of  the  passage  in  Moreh,  II,  4,  where  he  states  that 
animate  beings  move  either  by  instinct  (P3B  considered  equivalent  to  PO 
"niynttn),  or  by  reason.  Instinct  he  defines  as  the  intention  of  an  animate 
being  to  approach  something  agreeable,  or  to  shun  something  disagreeable, 
as,  for  instance,  to  approach  water  on  account  of  thirst,  or  to  avoid  the 
sun  on  account  of  its  heat.  He,  then,  goes  on  to  say  that  it  makes  no 
difference  whether  the  thing  really  exists  or  is  imaginary,  since  the  ima- 
gination of  something  agreeable  or  of  something  disagreeable  likewise  causes 
the  animate  being  to  move  (Tin  D"J  SjmrY1  nwty  noi  1J33  Nintf  ntt  JV&13  "O). 
Furthermore,  in  Moreh,  II,  12,  he  declares  that  all  defects  in  speech  or 
character  are  either  the  direct  or  indirect  work  of  the  imagination  (*?3  '3 
\hy&  nriN  -jt?»3  IN  pnsin  bj?s  Kin  rmea  IN  -121:1  pnon).  In  regard  to  prophecy, 
M.  lays  great  stress  upon  the  imagination  (ibid.,  II,  35),  considering  pro- 
phecy to  be  the  most  perfect  development  of  the  imaginative  faculty. 
During  sleep  this  faculty  is  the  same  as  when  it  receives  prophecy,  except 
that  when  asleep  the  imagination  is  not  fully  developed,  and  has  not 
reached  its  highest  perfection.  See  supra,  c.  I,  p.  41,  n.  1. 

1  See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  55,  n.  1. 

2  Of.  Moreh,  II,  4,  "But  even  a  being  that  is  endowed  with  the  faculty 
of  forming  an  idea,  and  possesses  a  soul  with  the  faculty  of  moving,  does 
not  change  its  place  on  each  occasion  that  it  forms  an  idea;  for  an  idea 
alone  does  not  produce  motion,  as  has  been  explained  in  (Aristotle's)  Meta- 
physics.   We  can  easily  understand  this,  when  we  consider  how  often  we 
form  ideas   of  certain  things,  yet  do  not  move  towards  them,  though  we 
are  able  to  do  so ;  it  is  only  when  the  desire  arises  for  the  thing  imagined 
that  we  move  in  order  to  obtain  it."     Cf.  De  Anima  III,  10.    The  same 
thought  is  expressed  in  Eth.  NIC.  VI,  2,  "And  so  since  moral  virtue  is  a 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— II  49 

sensitive  and  the  appetitive)  alone  really  produce  transgressions 
and  observances. 

Now,  as  for  the  virtues,  they  are  of  two  kinds,  moral  and 
intellectual,  with  the  corresponding  two  classes  of  vices.1  The 
intellectual  virtues  belong  to  the  rational  faculty.  They  are 
(1)  wisdom,  which  is  the  knowledge  of  the  direct  and  indirect 
causes  of  things  based  on  a  previous  realization  of  the  existence 
of  those  things,  the  causes  of  which  have  been  investigated; 2  (2)  rea- 
son, consisting  of  (a)  inborn,  theoretical  reason,  that  is,  axioms,3 
(b)  the  acquired  intellect,*  which  we  need  not  discuss  here,  and 


disposition  exercising  choice,  and  choice  is  will  consequent  on  deliberation, 
the  reason  must  be  true  and  the  will  right  to  constitute  good  choice,  and 
what  the  reason  affirms  the  will  must  pursue  . . .  But  operation  of  the  in- 
tellect by  itself  moves  nothing,  only  when  directed  to  a  certain  result — i.  e. 
exercised  in  moral  action  . .  ."  See  Scheyer,  ibid.,  p.  103 — 104;  and  Rosin, 
Ethik,  p.  56,  n.  2. 

i  Cf.  Eth.  Nic.,  (ofxrcu  -finical  and  diavorjriKai)  I,  11  (end);  II,  1 ;  VI,  2;  Eude- 
mian  Ethics,  II,  1 ;  Millot  ha-Higgayon,  c.  XIV  (nvnim  ni!?jm  nrmn  rtbyti). 

s  Wisdom  (n»3n),  according  to  M.,  is  used  of  four  different  things 
(Moreh,  III,  54).  It  denotes  (1)  the  knowledge  of  those  truths  which  lead 
to  the  knowledge  of  God,  (2)  the  knowledge  of  any  workmanship,  (3)  the 
acquisition  of  moral  principles,  and  (4)  cunning  and  subtlety.  In  Moreh, 
I,  69,  where  M.  demonstrates  that  God  is  the  Primal  Cause,  in  agreement 
with  Aristotle  (Physics,  II,  7),  he  asserts  that  everything  owes  its  origin 
to  four  causes,  the  substance,  the  form,  the  agens  (^JHB),  and  the  final  cause 
(rpbsn).  These  are  sometimes  direct  (D^"lp),  and  sometimes  indirect  (D^pim), 
though  each  in  itself  is  a  cause  (rfov  or  mo,  corresponding  to  Ar.  <*-X*  and 
*_-*-^«M>;  alrla,  atnov.  Cf.  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  313,  n.  1.) 

8  Literally,  first  impressions  (fiWBWin  rflbSBflOn;  Ar.  !?lit!?N  rtN^pJJD;  apxai 
rQ>v  airoSfiKT&v  a&6fjMTa,  intelligibilia  prima),  which  are  fundamental  principles 
or  axioms  that  would  need  no  proof  even  though  man  were  left  in  his 
primitive  state  (Moreh,  I,  51),  and  which  are  explained  by  common  sense. 
There  are  four  kinds  of  knowledge  which  need  no  demonstration,  one  of 
them  being  the  knowledge  of  axioms,  as,  for  instance,  that  the  whole  is 
greater  than  a  part,  that  two  is  an  even  number,  that  two  things  equal  to 
the  same  thing  are  equal  to  each  other  (Millot  ha-Higgayon,  c.  XIV),  and 
that  one  cannot  both  affirm  and  deny  a  thing.  See  Scheyer,  note  to 
Moreh,  I,  51.  Cf.  Eth.  Nic.,  VI,  6  on  Intuitive  Apprehension;  Scheyer, 
Psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim.,  p.  16 — 17;  and  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  128,  n.  3. 

*  For  the  definition  and  description  of  the  acquired  intellect  (HipiH  bys 
or  bSNin  mpin  hytl;  Ar.  IXSnoobN  hpvhx,  vow  <?T«CT^OS),  see  Moreh,  I,  72;  I.  T. 

D 


50  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

(c)  sagacity  and  intellectual  cleverness,  which  is  the  ability  to 
perceive  quickly,  and  to  grasp  an  idea  without  delay,  or  in  a 
very  short  time.  The  vices  of  this  faculty  are  the  antitheses 
or  the  opposites  of  these  virtues. 

Moral  virtues  belong  only  to  the  appetitive  faculty  to  which 
that  of  sensation  in  this  connection  is  merely  subservient.1  The 
virtues  of  this  faculty  are  very  numerous,  being  moderation,  [i.  e. 
fear  of  sin],  liberality,  honesty,  meekness,  humility,  contentedness, 
[which  the  Rabbis  call  "wealth",  when  they  say,  "Who  is  truly 
wealthy?  He  who  is  contented  with  his  lot"2],  courage,  [faith- 
fulness], and  other  virtues  akin  to  these.  The  vices  of  this 
faculty  consist  of  a  deficiency  or  of  an  exaggeration  of  these 
qualities. 

As  regards  the  faculties  of  nutrition  and  imagination,  it  can- 
not be  said  that  they  have  vices  or  virtues,  but  that  the  nutri- 
tive functions  work  properly  or  improperly;  as,  for  instance, 
when  one  says  that  a  man's  digestion  is  good  or  bad,  or  that 
one's  imagination  is  confused  or  clear.  This  does  not  mean, 
however,  that  they  have  virtues  or  vices. 

So  much  we  wished  to  discuss  in  this  chapter. 


Glossary  of  Strange  Words,  sub  voce  (under  D);  Scheyer,  ibid.,  pp.  17 — 19, 
39—93;  Munk,  Guide,  I,  pp.  307—308,  note;  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  57,  n.  1; 
Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  p.  11,  n.  1;  and  idem,  Miisa  b.  Maimtins  eschatologische 
Gedanken,  p.  13,  etc. 

1  See  Scheyer,  ibid.,  pp.  104 — 105,  and  Rosin,  ibid.,  p.  57,  n.  4. 

2  Abot,  IV,  1. 


THE  ancients2  maintained  that  the  soul,  like  the  body,  is 
subject  to  good  health  and  illness.  The  soul's  healthful  state  is 
due  to  its  condition,  and  that  of  its  faculties,  by  which  it  con- 
stantly does  what  is  right,  and  performs  what  is  proper,  while 
the  illness  of  the  soul  is  occasioned  by  its  condition,  and  that 
of  its  faculties,  which  results  in  its  constantly  doing  wrong, 
and  performing  actions  that  are  improper.3  The  science  of 
medicine  investigates  the  health  of  the  body.  Now,  just  as 
those,  who  are  physically  ill,  imagine  that,  on  account  of  their 
vitiated  tastes,  the  sweet  is  bitter  and  the  bitter  is  sweet — and 
likewise  fancy  the  wholesome  to  be  unwholesome — and  just  as 
their  desire  grows  stronger,  and  their  enjoyment  increases  for 
such  things  as  dust,  coal,  very  acidic  and  sour  foods,  and  the 
like — which  the  healthy  loathe  and  refuse,  as  they  are  not  only 
not  beneficial  even  to  the  healthy,  but  possibly  harmful — so 
those  whose  souls  are  ill,  that  is  the  wicked  and  the  morally 
perverted,  imagine  that  the  bad  is  good,  and  that  the  good  is 
bad.  The  wicked  man,  moreover,  continually  longs  for  excesses 
which  are  really  pernicious,  but  which,  on  account  of  the  illness 
of  his  soul,  he  considers  to  be  good.4  Likewise,  just  as  when 

i  For  a  discussion  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Jaraczewski, 
ZPhKr.,  XL  VI  pp.  10—11;  and  Rosin,  Ethik,p.  77  ff.  A  short  summary 
is  contained  in  H.  Deot,  II,  1. 

5  See  Foreword,  p.  35  n.  3. 

3  Of.  Pirke  Mosheh,  in  Kobe?,  II,  20b,  WV  D^lDl^sn  1BND  »VT7i  p  nfffc  ifi» 
•y\  "Vim  nwa  vsti. 

*  Aristotle,  in  discussing  Pleasures  (Eth.  Nic.,  X,  5),  says,  "Yet  in  the 
case  of  human  creatures  they  (pleasures)  differ  not  a  little;  for  the  very 
same  things  please  some  and  pain  others ;  and  what  are  painful  and  hateful 

n* 


62  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

people,  unacquainted  with  the  science  of  medicine,  realize  that 
they  are  sick,  and  consult  a  physician,  who  tells  them  what  they 
must  do,  forbidding  them  to  partake  of  that  which  they  imagine 
beneficial,  and  prescribing  for  them  things  which  are  unpleasant 
and  bitter,  in  order  that  their  bodies  may  become  healthy,  and 
that  they  may  again  choose  the  good  and  spurn  the  bad,  so 
those  whose  souls  become  ill  should  consult  the  sages,  the  moral 
physicians,  who  will  advise  them  against  indulging  in  those  evils 
which  they  (the  morally  ill)  think  are  good,  so  that  they  may 
be  healed  by  that  art  of  which  I  shall  speak  in  the  next 
chapter,  and  through  which  the  moral  qualities  are  restored  to 
their  normal  condition.  But,  if  he  who  is  morally  sick  be  not 
aware  of  his  illness,  imagining  that  he  is  well,  or,  being  aware 
of  it,  does  not  seek  a  remedy,  his  end  will  be  similar  to  that 
of  one,  who,  suffering  from  bodily  ailment,  yet  continuing  to 
indulge  himself,  neglects  to  be  cured,  and  who  in  consequence 
surely  meets  an  untimely  death. 

Those  who  know  that  they  are  in  a  diseased  state,  but  neverthe- 
less yield  to  their  inordinate  passions,  are  described  in  the  truthful 
Law  which  quotes  their  own  words,  "Though  I  walk  in  the  stubbor- 
ness  of  my  heart,  in  order  that  the  indulgence  of  the  passions  may 
appease  the  thirst  for  them."  *  This  means  that,  intending  to  quench  the 


to  some  are  pleasant  to  and  liked  by  others.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
sweet  things;  the  same  will  not  seem  so  to  the  man  in  a  fever  as  to  him 
who  is  in  health ;  nor  will  the  invalid  and  the  person  in  robust  health  have 
the  same  notion  of  warmth.  The  same  is  the  case  with  other  things  also." 
Cf.,  also,  H.  Deot,  II,  1,  "To  those  who  are  diseased  the  bitter  tastes  sweet 
and  the  sweet  bitter.  Some  sick  people,  moreover,  crave  and  long  for  food 
that  is  unfit  to  eat,  such  as  dust  and  charcoal,  spurning  food  that  is  bene- 
ficial, such  as  bread  and  meat,  according  to  the  intensity  of  their  illness. 
Likewise,  people  whose  souls  are  diseased  desire  and  love  evil  character- 
istics, and  hate  the  moral  path,  being  loathe  to  pursue  it,  since,  on  ac- 
count of  their  illness,  it  is  very  difficult  for  them  to  do  so.  Thus,  Isaiah 
says  of  such  people,  '"Wo  unto  those  that  say  of  the  evil  it  is  good,  and 
of  the  good  it  is  evil;  that  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness, 
that  put  bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter'  (V,  20).  Concerning  them 
it  is  also  said  that  '(they  are  those)  who  leave  the  path  of  uprightness  to 
walk  in  the  ways  of  darkness'  (Prov.  II,  13)." 
i  Dt.  XXIX,  18. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— III  53 

thirst,  it  is,  on  the  contrary,  intensifed.  He  who  is  ignorant 
of  his  illness  is  spoken  of  in  many  places  by  Solomon,  who  says, 
"The  way  of  the  fool  is  straight  in  his  own  eyes,  but  he  who 
hearkeneth  unto  counsel  is  wise".1  This  means  that  he  who 
listens  to  the  counsel  of  the  sage  is  wise,  for  the  sage  teaches 
him  the  way  that  is  actually  right,  and  not  the  one  that  he 
(the  morally  ill)  erroneously  considers  to  be  such.  Solomon 
also  says,  "There  is  many  a  way  which  seemeth  even  before  a 
man;  but  its  ends  are  ways  unto  death".2  Again,  in  regard  to 
these  who  are  morally  ill,  in  that  they  do  not  know  what  is 
injurious  from  that  which  is  beneficial,  he  says,  "The  way  of  the 
wicked  is  like  darkness;  they  do  not  know  against  what  they 
stumble."  » 

The   art   of  healing   the   diseases  of  the  soul  will,   however, 
form  the  subject-matter  of  the  fourth  chapter. 


i  Prov.  XII,  15.  J  Ibid.,  XIV,  12. 

»  Ibid.,  IV,  19.  Cf.  jff.  Deot,  II,  1,  "What  is  the  remedy  for  those  whose 
souls  are  diseased?  Let  them  consult  the  sages  who  are  the  physicians 
of  the  soul,  who  will  cure  their  disease  by  teaching  them  those  character- 
istics by  which  they  may  return  to  the  moral  path,  and  recognize  their 
evil  traits.  Concerning  those  who  do  not  seek  the  sages  in  order  to  be 
cured,  Solomon  says,  'wisdom  and  instruction  fools  despise'  (Prov.  I,  7)". 
The  conception  of  a  spiritual  healing  originated  neither  with  Aristotle  nor 
with  M.  There  are  many  biblical  passages  based  on  such  a  comparison 
with  the  healing  art,  as  Jer.  Ill,  22 :  D^niSltfD  nEJiN ;  Hos.  XIV,  5 :  nraitPfi  «B1« 
Ps.  XLI,  5:  ~\h  TiNton  "O  "PBi  n«an«,  etc.  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  78,  n.  4,  refers  to 
similar  passages  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Arabic  literature. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CONCERNING  THE  CURE  OF  THE  DISEASES  OF  THE  SOUL  t 

GOOD  deeds  are  such  as  are  equibalanced,2  maintaining  the 
mean  between  two  equally  bad  extremes,  the  too  much  and  the 

i  To  this  chapter,  in  which  the  Aristotelian  doctrine  of  the  Mean 
(Meffbrrp,  balance)  is  applied  to  Jewish  ethics,  M.  later  supplemented 
H.  Deot,  I,  1—7;  II,  2,  3,  7;  and  III,  1.  Cf.  Eth.  Nic.  II,  5—9;  III,  8—14; 
IV.  Although  M.  follows  Aristotle  in  defining  virtue  as  a  state  inter- 
mediate between  two  extremes,  the  too  little  and  the  too  much,  he  still 
remains  on  Jewish  ground,  as  there  are  biblical  and  Talmudical  passages 
expressing  such  a  thought.  Such  passages  are  Prov.  IV,  26,  "Balance  well 
the  track  of  thy  foot,  and  let  all  thy  ways  be  firmly  right";  ibid.,  XXX,  8, 
"Neither  poverty  nor  riches  give  thou  unto  me";  Eccles.  VII,  16,  "Be  not 
righteous  overmuch;  neither  show  thyself  overwise"  (quoted  in  H.  Deot, 
III,  1) ;  etc.  In  Moreh,  I,  32,  M.  interprets  "neither  show  thyself  overwise" 
and  "To  eat  too  much  honey  is  not  good"  (Prov.  XXV,  27)  as  a  warning 
against  attempting  to  exceed  the  limits  of  one's  intellectual  powers,  and 
as  an  admonition  to  keep  knowledge  within  bounds.  In  the  Palestinian 
Talmud  (Hagigah,  II,  77  a  bot.),  there  is  found  an  interesting  passage  which 
sums  up  well  the  thought  of  this  chapter,  and  it  is  curious  that  M.  did 
not  refer  to  it.  It  reads,  "The  ways  of  the  Torah  may  be  likened  to  two 
roads,  on  one  of  which  fire  and  on  the  other  snow  is  encountered.  If  one 
go  along  one  path,  he  will  be  burned  to  death,  and  if  he  proceed  along 
the  other,  he  will  perish  in  the  snow.  What,  then,  should  one  do?  He 
must  go  between  the  extremes."  A  similar  passage  is  found  in  Tosefta 
Hagigah  2  (cf.  Yer.  Hagigah,  p.  20),  "They  make  it  incumbent  upon  man 
to  go  between  the  extremes,  and  not  to  incline  to  this  side  or  to  that." 
See,  also,  Sotah,  5  a,  "he  (the  scholar)  in  whom  there  is  pride  deserves  ex- 
communication, and  also  he  in  whom  there  is  no  pride  at  all."  For  a 
discussion  of  Aristotle's  doctrine  of  the  Meo^s,  see  Grant,  The  Ethics  of 
Aristotle,  vol.  I,  pp.  251 — 262.  For  that  of  M.,  see  Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr, 
XLVI,  pp.  11 — 12;  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  26,  n.  1;  p.  79  ff.;  Lazarus,  Ethik,  vol. 
I,  Abhang  XIV  (Eng.  ed.  vol.  I,  p.  273  f.);  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  Introd., 
pp.  XIII — XIV;  Yellin  and  Abrahams,  Maimonides,  pp.  78 — 83;  Cohen, 
Charakteristik,  etc.,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  p.  Ill  ff. ;  A.  Lb'wenthal  in 
JE.,  II,  p.  101;  Lewis,  in  Aspects  of  the  Hebrew  Genius,  (London,  1910) 
pp.  82 — 83.  On  the  mean  in  Jewish  religious  philosophy,  see  Rosin,  Ethik, 
pp.  10,  12,  14,  19,  24;  H.  Malter,  JQR  (new  series)  vol.  I,  p.  160,  n.  15. 

*  BMttTJ,  the  equidistant  (equivalent  to  the  Aristotelian  foov,   the  exactly 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  55 

too  little.1  Virtues  are  psychic  conditions  and  dispositions  which 
are  mid-way  between  two  reprehensible  extremes,  one  of  which 
is  characterized  by  an  exaggeration,  the  other  by  a  deficiency.2 
Good  deeds  are  the  product  of  these  dispositions.  To  illustrate, 
abstemiousness  is  a  disposition  which  adopts  a  mid-course  between 
inordinate  passion  and  total  insensibility  to  pleasure.  Abstem- 
iousness, then,  is  a  proper  rule  of  conduct,  and  the  psychic  dis- 
position which  gives  rise  to  it  is  an  ethical  quality ;  but  inordi- 
nate passion,  the  extreme  of  excess,  and  total  insensibility  to 
enjoyment,  the  extreme  of  deficiency3,  are  both  absoluteley 
pernicious.  The  psychic  dispositions,  from  which  these  two 
extremes,  inordinate  passion  and  insensibility,  result — the  one 
being  an  exaggeration,  the  other  a  deficiency — are  alike  classed 
among  moral  imperfections. 

Likewise,  liberality  is  the  mean  between  sordidness  and  extra- 
vagence;  courage,  between  recklessness  and  cowardice;  dignity, 
between  haughtiness  and  loutishness4;  humility,  between  arrogance 


equal,  the  normal,  or  equibalanced);  cf.  Moreh,  II,  39,  "It  is  clear,  then, 
that  the  Law  is  normal  (rPWfi)  in  this  sense;  for  it  contains  the  words, 
'Just  statutes  and  judgments'  (Deut.  IV,  8);  but  'just'  is  here  identical 
with  'equibalanced'  (D^llW)." 

i  D'JttlO&n,  the  mean  (Aristotelian  ntvov).  Nic.  Eth.,  II,  6,  "By  an  ob- 
jective mean,  I  understand  that  which  is  equidistant  from  the  two  given 
extremes,  and  which  is  one  and  the  same  to  all,  and  by  a  mean  relatively 
to  the  person,  I  understand  that  which  is  neither  too  much  nor  too  little." 

8  Cf.  ibid.,  "Virtue,  then,  is  a  disposition  of  the  moral  purpose  in 
relative  balance,  which  is  determined  by  a  standard,  according  as  the 
thoughtful  man  would  determine.  It  is  a  middle  state  between  two  faulty 
ones,  in  the  way  of  excess  on  one  side,  and  defect  on  the  other;  and 
it  is  so,  moreover,  because  the  faulty  states  on  one  side  fall  short  of, 
and  those  on  the  other  side  exceed,  what  is  right,  both  in  the  case  of  the 
emotions  and  the  actions;  but  virtue  finds,  and,  when  found,  adopts  the 
mean."  Cf.  JET.  Deot,  1, 4,  and  II,  2. 

s  ]lt?ion  nspn,  is  the  extreme  of  excess  (Aristotle's  vweppo\fy,  and  rrcpn 
pnKn  the  extreme  of  deficiency  (ax«^w).  Cf.  H.  Deot,  I,  5;  III,  1 ;  pmnNl 
'31  p  nnw  vfyi  "i»i  hw  »bv  n»  |nn«n  inb,  where  ynnNn  ns  clearly  means  the 
extreme  of  the  too  little. 

*  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  IV,  pp.  19—20,  n.  17.  On  the  gloss  royiDtt  nmni 
'31,  introduced  here  in  some  Mss.  and  edd.,  see  Hebrew  text,  c.  IV,  p.  20, 
note.  This  gloss  seems  to  go  back  to  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  7,  "He  that  is  as  he 


56  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

and  self-abasement;  contentedness,  between  avarice  and  slothful 
indifference;  and  magnificence,  between  meanness  and  profusion. 
[Since  definite  terms  do  not  exist  in  our  language  with,  which  to 
express  these  latter  qualities,  it  is  necessary  to  explain  their  con- 
tent, and  tell  what  the  philosophers  meant  by  them.  A  man  is 
called  magnificent  whose  whole  intention  is  to  do  good  to  others 
by  personal  service,  by  money,  or  advice,  and  with  all  his  power, 
but  without  meanwhile  bringing  suffering  or  disgrace  upon  himself. 
That  is  the  medium  line  of  conduct.  The  mean  man  is  one 
who  does  not  want  others  to  succeed  in  anything,  even  though 
he  himself  may  not  thereby  suffer  any  loss,  hardship,  or  injury. 
That  is  the  one  extreme.  The  profuse  man,  on  the  contrary, 
is  one  who  willingly  performs  the  above-mentioned  deeds,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  thereby  he  brings  upon  himself  great  injury, 
or  disgrace,  terrible  hardship,  or  considerable  loss.  That  is  the 
other  extreme.1]  Gentleness  is  the  mean  between  irascibility 
and  insensibility  to  shame  and  disgrace;  and  modesty,  between 
impudence  and  shamefacedness.2  [The  explanation  of  these  latter 


should  be  may  be  called  friendly,  and  his  mean  state  friendliness ;  he  that 
exceeds,  if  it  be  without  any  interested  motive,  somewhat  too  complaisant, 
if  with  such  motive,  a  flatterer;  he  that  is  deficient  and  in  all  instances 
unpleasant,  quarrelsome  and  cross." 

1  The  virtue  which  I.  T.  explains  here,  owing  to  the  inadequacy  of  the 
Hebrew  terms,  is  the  one  which  Aristotle  calls  magnificence  (I.  T.'s  llto 
21?).    The  excess  is  want  of  taste  or  wdgar  profusion  (xhr\  21B  ynn11),  and 
the  defect  paltriness  (<"6i3n).    See  Eth.  Nic.,  loc.  cit.    According  to  Aristotle, 
magnificence  is   a   higher  kind  of  liberality  (niTIJ),   and  consists   of  the 
spending   of  money   on   a  grand  scale,   with  taste  and  propriety.     It  is 
prompted  by  a  desire  for  what  is  noble,  concerning  itself  with  the  services 
of  religion,  public  works,  and  so  forth.    The  vulgar  man,  whose  object  is 
ostentation,  offends  with  excessive  splendor,  while  the  mean  man,   on  the 
other  hand,  through  timidity  and  constant  fear  of  expense,  even  though 
he  does  expend  large  amounts,  mars  the  whole  effect  by  some  petty  charac- 
teristic of  meanness  (ibid.,  IV,  2).    I.  T.  has,  accordingly,  incorrectly  ex- 
plained the  terms  21B  2^,  ntei,  and  S&Tl  21b  ]nn». 

2  See   JET.  Deot,   I,   and  II   for   a   list   and   discussion  of  the  virtues. 
Aristotle  mentions  and  discussess  the  following  virtues  in  Eth.  Nic.;  courage 
(II,  7,   and  III,  6 — 9),   perfected  self-mastery  or  temperance  (II,  7,   and 
III,  10—11),  liberality  (II,  7,  and  IV,  1),  magnificence  (II,  7  and  IV,  2), 
greatness   of  soul  (II,  7,   and  IV,  3),   love   of  honor  (II,  7,   and  IV,  4), 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  57 

terms,  gleaned  from  the  sayings  of  our  sages  (may  their  memory 
be  blessed!)  seems  to  be  this.  In  their  opinion,  a  modest 
man  is  one  who  is  very  bashful,  and  therefore  modesty  is  the 
mean.  This  we  gather  from  their  saying,  "A  shamefaced  man 
cannot  learn".1  They  also  assert,  "A  modest  man  is  worthy  of 
Paradise"2,  but  they  do  not  say  this  of  a  shamefaced  man. 
Therefore,  I  have  thus  arranged  them." 3]  So  it  is  with  the  other 
qualities.  One  does  not  necessarily  have  to  use  conventional 
terms  for  these  qualities,  if  only  the  ideas  are  clearly  fixed  in 
the  mind.4 

It  often  happens,  however,  that  men  err  as  regards  these 
qualities,  imagining  that  one  of  the  extremes  is  good,  and  is  a 
virtue.  Sometimes,  the  extreme  of  the  too  much  is  considered 
noble,  as  when  temerity  is  made  a  virtue,  and  those  who  reck- 
lessly risk  their  lives  are  hailed  as  heroes.  Thus,  when  people 
see  a  man,  reckless  to  the  highest  degree,  who  runs  deliberately 
into  danger,  intentionally  tempting  death,  and  escaping  only  by 
mere  chance,  they  laud  such  a  one  to  the  skies,  and  say  that  he 
is  a  hero.  At  other  times,  the  opposite  extreme,  the  too  little,  is 
greatly  esteemed,  and  the  coward5  is  considered  a  man  of  for- 
bearance; the  idler,  as  being  a  person  of  a  contented  disposition; 
and  he,  who  by  the  dullness  of  his  nature  is  callous  to  every 
joy,  is  praised  as  a  man  of  moderation,  [that  is,  one  who  eschews 
sin].  In  like  manner,  profuse  liberality  and  extreme  lavishness 
are  erroneously  extolled  as  excellent  characteristics.6  This  is, 
however,  an  absolutely  mistaken  view,  for  the  really  praiseworthy 


gentleness  (II,  7,  and  IV,  5),  friendliness  (II,  7,  and  IV,  6),  truthfulness 
(II,  7.  and  IV,  7),  jocularity  or  liveliness  (II,  7,  and  IV,  8),  and  modesty 
(II,  7,  and  IV,  9).  Of.,  also,  Eudemian  Ethics,  II,  3,  where  a  formal  table 
is  given  contaning  fourteen  virtues  and  their  respective  pairs  of  extremes; 
and  Mag.  Mor.  I,  20  «. 

i  Abot,  II,  5.       2  Abot,  V,  20.       3  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  IV,  p.  21,  n.  16. 

4  Aristotle  also  mentions  the  paucity  of  terms  to  express  the  nice 
distinctions  he  makes  (Eth.  Nic.,  II,  7). 

s  Better,  "the  apathetic" ;  see  Hebrew  text,  c.  IV,  p.  21,  n.  27. 

6  Cf.  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  9,  "for  we  ourselves  sometimes  praise  those  who 
are  defective  in  this  feeling  (anger),  and  we  call  them  gentle;  at  another, 
we  term  the  hot-tempered  manly  and  spirited." 


58  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

is  the  medium  course  of  action  to  which  every  one  should  strive 
to  adhere,  always  weighing  his  conduct  carefully,  so  that  he  may 
attain  the  proper  mean. 

Know,  moreover,  that  these  moral  excellences  or  defects 
cannot  be  acquired,  or  implanted  in  the  soul,  except  by  means 
of  the  frequent  repetition  of  acts  resulting  from  these  qualities, 
which,  practised  during  a  long  period  of  time,  accustoms  us  to 
them.1  If  these  acts  performed  are  good  ones,  then  we  shall 
have  gained  a  virtue;  but  if  they  are  bad,  we  shall  have  ac- 
quired a  vice.  Since,  however,  no  man  is  born  with  an  innate 
virtue  or  vice,  as  we  shall  explain  in  Chapter  VIII,  and,  as 
every  one's  conduct  from  childhood  up  is  undoubtedly  influenced 
by  the  manner  of  living  of  his  relatives  and  countrymen,2  his 
conduct  may  be  in  accord  with  the  rules  of  moderation;  but, 
then  again,  it  is  possible  that  his  acts  may  incline  towards  either 
extreme,  as  we  have  demonstrated,  in  which  case,  his  soul  be- 
comes diseased.3  In  such  a  contingency,  it  is  proper  for  him 
to  resort  to  a  cure,  exactly  as  he  would  were  his  body  suffering 
from  an  illness.  So,  just  as  when  the  equilibrium  of  the  physical 
health  is  disturbed,4  and  we  note  which  way  it  is  tending  in 
order  to  force  it  to  go  in  exactly  the  opposite  direction  until 
it  shall  return  to  its  proper  condition,  and,  just  as  when  the 
proper  adjustment  is  reached,  we  cease  this  operation,  and  have 
recourse  to  that  which  will  maintain  the  proper  balance,  in 
exactly  the  same  way  must  we  adjust  the  moral  equilibrium.5 


1  Cf.  Yoma,  86  b;  Sotah,  22  a,  "As  soon  as  a  man  has  committed  a  sin 
and  repeated  it,  it  becomes  to  him  a  permitted  act". 

2  Cf.  H.  Deot,  "VI,  1,    "The    natural    disposition    of  the    human   mind 
occasions  man  to  be  influenced  in  his  opinions  and  actions  by  those  with 
whom  he  associates,  and  his  conduct  to  be  dependent  on  that  of  his  friends 
and  countrymen". 

3  On  the  acquisition  of  virtues  and  vices,  see  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  1 — 3;  and 
H.  Deot,  I,  2,  7.    See  below  c.  VIII,  p.  85ff. 

4  Cf.  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  2,  "for  excessive  training  impairs  the  strength  as 
well  as  deficient;    meat  and  drink,    in  like  manner,  in  too  great  or  too 
small  quantities,  impair  the  health;  while  in  due  proportion  they  cause 
increase,  and  preserve  it". 

5  Cf.  H.  Deot,  II,  2.    The  same  thought  is  expressed  by  Aristotle  in 
Eth.  Nic.,  II,  9.     If  we  find  ourselves  at  one  of  the  faulty  extremes,  we 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  59 

Let  us  take,  for  example,  the  case  of  a  man  in  whose  soul  there 
has  developed  a  disposition  [of  great  avarice]  on  account  of 
which  he  deprives  himself  [of  every  comfort  in  life],  and  which, 
by  the  way,  is  one  of  the  most  detestable  of  defects,  and  an  im- 
moral act,  as  we  have  shown  in  this  chapter.  If  we  wish  to 
cure  this  sick  man,  we  must  not  command  him  merely  [to  prac- 
tise] deeds  of  generosity,  for  that  would  be  as  ineffective  as  a 
physician  trying  to  cure  a  patient  consumed  by  a  burning  fever 
by  administering  mild  medicines,  which  treatment  would  be  in- 
efficacious. We  must,  however,  induce  him  to  squander  so  often, 
and  to  repeat  his  acts  of  profusion  so  continuously  until  that 
propensity  which  was  the  cause  of  his  avarice  has  totally  dis- 
appeared. Then,  when  he  reaches  that  point  where  he  is  about 
to  become  a  squanderer,  we  must  teach  him  to  moderate  his 
profusion,  and  tell  him  to  continue  with  deeds  of  generosity,  and 
to  watch  out  with  due  care  lest  he  relapse  either  into  lavishness 
or  niggardliness.1 


must  drag  ourselves  away  in  the  opposite  direction,  for  by  bending  our- 
selves a  long  way  back  from  the  erroneous  extreme,  allowing  for  the 
recoil,  as  when  one  straightens  a  crooked  piece  of  timber,  we  shall  at 
length  arrive  at  the  proper  mean.  Punishment  of  sin  also,  according  to 
M.,  forces  the  culprit  to  the  other  extreme  of  the  sin  committed.  Thus, 
if  a  man  sin  as  regards  property,  he  must  spend  his  money  liberally  in 
the  service  of  God;  if  he  has  indulged  in  sinful  bodily  enjoyments,  he 
must  chastise  his  body  with  fasting,  privation,  and  the  like.  This  practice 
should  even  extend  itself  to  man's  intellectual  failings,  which  may  cause 
him  to  believe  some  false  doctrine,  a  fault  that  is  to  be  remedied  by 
turning  one's  thoughts  entirely  away  from  wordly  affairs,  and  devoting 
them  exclusively  to  intellectual  exercises,  and  carefully  reflecting  upon 
those  beliefs  in  which  he  should  have  faith  (Moreh,  III,  46).  Compare  with 
this  Aristotle's  theory  as  regards  correction,  according  to  which  the 
remedies  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be  the  contraries  of  the  ills  they 
seek  to  cure  (Eth.  Nic.,  II,  2). 

*  Cf.  H.  Deot,  II,  2,  "How  shall  he  cure  them  (the  moral  ills)?  The 
sages  tell  the  wrathful  man  that  if  he  is  accustomed  to  scold  and  curse 
he  should  train  himself  never  to  give  vent  to  these  feelings,  and  that  he 
should  continue  this  course  a  long  while,  until  he  has  eradicated  wrath 
from  his  heart.  If  he  is  haughty  let  him  train  himself  to  be  humble,  let 
him  clothe  himself  in  ragged  garments  which  humiliate  those  who  wear 
them,  and  let  him  do  similar  acts,  until  he  has  uprooted  his  pride,  and 


60  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  is  a  squanderer,  he  must  be 
directed  to  practise  strict  economy,  and  to  repeat  acts  of  niggard- 
liness. It  is  not  necessary,  however,  for  him  to  perform  acts  of 
avarice  as  many  times  as  the  mean  man  should  those  of  pro- 
fusion. This  subtle  point,  which  is  a  canon  and  secret  of  the 
science  of  medicine,  tells  us  that  it  is  easier  for  a  man  of  profuse 
habits  to  moderate  them  to  generosity,  than  it  is  for  a  miser  to 
become  generous.  Likewise,  it  is  easier  for  one  who  is  apathetic 
[and  eschews  sin]  to  be  excited  to  moderate  enjoyment,  than  it 
is  for  one,  burning  with  passion,  to  curb  his  desires.  Consequently, 
the  licentious  man  must  be  made  to  practise  restraint  more  than 
the  apathetic  man  should  be  induced  to  indulge  his  passions; 
and,  similarly,  the  coward  requires  exposure  to  danger  more 
frequently  than  the  reckless  man  should  be  forced  to  cowardice. 
The  mean  man  needs  to  practise  lavishness  to  a  greater  degree 
than  should  be  required  of  the  lavish  to  practise  meanness. 
This  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  science  of  curing  moral 
ills,  and  is  worthy  of  remembrance. 

On  this  account,  the  saintly  ones1  were  not  accustomed 
to  cause  their  dispositions  to  maintain  an  exact  balance 
between  the  two  extremes,  but  deviated  somewhat,  by  way 
of  [caution  and]  restraint,  now  to  the  side  of  exaggeration, 
and  now  to  that  of  deficiency.  Thus,  for  instance,  ab- 
stinence would  incline  to  some  degree  towards  excessive 
denial  of  all  pleasures;  valor  would  approach  somewhat  towards 
temerity;  generosity  to  lavishness;  modesty  to  extreme  humility,2 


returned  to  the  middle  course  which  is  the  moral  one;  and,  when  he  has 
done  so,  let  him  continue  in  it  all  his  days.  He  should  act  in  a  similar 
way  with  all  his  characteristics.  If  he  is  far  from  the  middle  course,  at 
one  extreme,  let  him  force  himself  to  go  to  the  other,  and  accustom  him- 
self fully  to  it,  until  he  returns  to  the  proper  course,  which  is  the  medial 
trait  as  regards  each  characteristic". 

1  See  infra,  c.  VI;  and  M.'s  Commentary  on  Abot,  V,  7.  11. 

3  M.  departs  from  strict  adherence  to  the  Aristotelian  doctrine  of  the  mean, 
which  Aristotle  himself  does,  at  times,  and  especially  as  regards  the  virtue 
of  justice.  M.  states  here  that  the  deviation  from  the  mean  on  the  part 
of  the  saints  was  because  of  caution  and  restraint.  Later,  in  H.  Deot, 
I,  5,  he  expands  this  thought  in  drawing  a  distinction  between  the  wise 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  61 

and   so    forth.    This   is   what  the   rabbis   hinted   at,    in   their 

man  (D2n)  and  the  saint  (Ton).  Wise  men  cling  to  the  exact  middle 
course,  but  "the  early  saints  were  accustomed  to  deviate  in  their  charac- 
teristics from  the  middle  course  towards  either  one  or  the  other  extreme, 
now  making  one  characteristic  tend  towards  the  extreme  of  deficiency, 
and  now  another  towards  that  of  excess.  This  is  doing  'more  than  the 
strict  letter  of  the  law  demands'."  In  regard  to  the  two  characteristics, 
pride  and  anger,  M.  states,  in  some  instances ,  the  Aristotelian  view  which 
considers  the  medium  course  the  virtue,  only  to  depart  from  it  at  other 
times,  and,  following  the  Bible  and  Talmud,  considers  the  extreme  the 
virtue.  Thus,  in  this  chapter,  pride  (niNJ)  is  the  one  extreme,  self-abasement 
(nnn  mbsv)  the  other,  and  humility  (71129),  the  mean,  is  the  virtue;  anger 
(Djn)  is  the  excess,  insensibility  to  shame  and  disgrace  (nB"in  711W171  YWTT 
mi)  the  deficiency,  and  mildness  (nii^2D),  the  mean,  is  the  virtue.  In 
H.  Deot,  I,  4,  the  medium  course  (Si13s2),  likewise,  in  respect  to  anger,  is 
designated  as  the  virtue.  Man  should  not  be  insensible  to  anger  (nOD  «bl 
B^ilD  1VN»),  although  he  should  give  vent  to  his  wrath  only  at  great  pro- 
vocation (hli  in  hs  «b«  DIW  *6).  In  his  Commentary  on  Abot,  IV,  4 
(Rawicz,  Commentar^  pp.  78 — 80),  and  in  H.  Deot,  II,  3,  M.  asserts,  how- 
ever, that  excessive  humility  and  complete  absence  of  anger  are  the  virtues, 
and  not  the  medium  course.  The  passage  in  Deot  is  as  follows,  "There 
are,  however,  some  dispositions  in  regard  to  which  it  is  wrong  to  pursue 
even  a  middle  course,  but  the  contrary  extreme  is  to  be  embraced,  as,  for 
instance,  in  respect  to  pride.  One  does  not  follow  the  proper  path  by 
merely  being  humble.  Man  should  be  very  humble  and  extremely  meek. 
To  this  end,  Scripture  says  of  Moses,  our  master,  that  he  was  'very 
humble'  (Num.  XII,  3),  and  not  that  he  was  simply  humble.  Therefore,  the 
sages  command  us,  'Be  thou  very  humble'  (Abot,  IV,  4),  and  say,  further- 
more, that  all  who  are  proud-hearted  deny  an  important  principle  of  our 
faith,  for  Scripture  says,  'Thy  heart  will  become  uplifted,  and  thou  wilt 
forget  the  Lord  thy  God'  (Deut.  VIII,  14),  and  they  also  say,  'he  who  is 
presumptuous,  even  to  a  slight  degree  deserves  excommunication'.  In  like 
manner,  anger  is  a  very  bad  characteristic;  one  should  go  to  the  opposite 
extreme  and  school  himself  to  be  without  wrath,  even  as  regards  a  matter 

at  which  it  might  seem  proper  to  show  anger The  Rabbis  of  old  said, 

'Whoever  allows  himself  to  be  carried  away  by  his  wrath  is  like  a  wor- 
shipper of  idols'  (Nedarim,  22&).  Futhermore,  they  said,  'If  a  wise  man 
becomes  angry,  his  wisdom  forsakes  him;  if  a  prophet,  his  inspiration  departs 
from  him'  (Pesahim,  66 b),  and,  'Those  that  abandon  themselves  to  their 
angry  passions  do  not  deserve  to  live'  (Pesahim  113  b).  Therefore,  they 
recommend  total  absence  of  anger,  so  that  a  man  may  thus  train  himself 
never  to  feel  it,  even  at  those  things  which  naturally  would  provoke  one 
to  wrath.  The  proper  course  to  pursue,  and  the  way  of  the  righteous,  is 
that  'they  are  insulted,  but  do  not  insult;  they  hear  themselves  reviled,  and 


62  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

saying,  "Do  more  than  the  strict  letter  of  the  law 
demands." * 

"When,  at  times,  some  of  the  pious  ones  deviated  to  one 
extreme  by  fasting,  keeping  nightly  vigils 2,  refraining  from  eating 
meat  or  drinking  wine,  renouncing  sexual  intercourse,  clothing 
themselves  in  woolen  and  hairy  garments,  dwelling  in  the  moun- 
tains, and  wandering  about  in  the  wilderness,  they  did  so,  partly 
as  a  means  of  restoring  the  health  of  their  souls,  as  we  have 
explained  above,  and  partly  because  of  the  immorality  of  the 
towns-people.3  When  the  pious  saw  that  they  themselves 
might  become  contaminated  by  association  with  evil  men,  or  by 
constantly  seeing  their  actions,  fearing  that  their  own  morals 
might  become  corrupt  on  account  of  contact  with  them,  they 
fled  to  the  wildernesses  far  from  their  society,  as  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  said,  "Oh  that  some  one  would  grant  me  in  the  wilder- 
ness the  dwelling  of  a  wanderer,  and  I  would  quit  my  people 
and  abandon  them;  for  they  are  all  adulterers,  a  troop  of  faith- 
less evil-doers."4  When  the  ignorant  observed  saintly  men 
acting  thus,  not  knowing  their  motives,  they  considered  their 
deeds  of  themselves  virtuous,  and  so,  blindly  imitating  their  acts, 
thinking  thereby  to  become  like  them,  chastised  their  bodies 
with  all  kinds  of  afflictions,  imagining  that  they  had  acquired 
perfection  and  moral  worth,  and  that  by  this  means  man  would 
approach  nearer  to  God,  as  if  He  hated  the  human  body,  and 
desired  its  destruction.  It  never  dawned  upon  them,  however, 
that  these  actions  were  bad  and  resulted  in  moral  imperfection 
of  the  soul.  Such  men  can  only  be  compared  to  one  who, 
ignorant  of  the  art  of  healing,  when  he  sees  skilful  physicians 
administering  to  those  at  the  point  of  death  [purgatives  known 

answer  not;  they  do  good  from  pure  motives  of  love;  they  rejoice  amidst 
their  sufferings,  and  of  them  it  is  said,  'Those  that  love  him  are  like  the 
sun  going  forth  in  its  might'  (Judges  V,  31,  Shabbat,  38b)".  See  Rosin, 
Ethih,  p.  87,  n.  5;  Cohen,  Charakteristik,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  112 — 116. 
See,  however,  supra,  p.  54,  note  1,  for  biblical  and  Talmudical  passages 
which  support  the  doctrine  of  the  medium  course. 

1  Baba  Me?ia,  35  a:  fin  mwfi  D'JB1?  it  muni  larri 

2  To  study  Torah. 

3  Cf.  H.  Deot,  VI,  1,  and  H.  Nedarim,  XIII,  23. 
1  Jer.  IX,  1. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  63 

in  Arabic  as]  colocynth,  scammony,  aloe,  and  the  like,  and 
depriving  them  of  food,  in  consequence  of  which  they  are  com- 
pletely cured  and  escape  death,  foolishly  concludes  that  since 
these  things  cure  sickness,  they  must  be  all  the  more  efficacious 
in  preserving  the  health,  or  prolonging  life.  If  a  person  should 
take  these  things  constantly,  and  treat  himself  as  a  sick  person, 
then  he  would  really  become  ill.  Likewise,  those  who  are 
spiritually  well,  but  have  recourse  to  remedies,  will  undoubtedly 
become  morally  ill. 

The  perfect  Law  which  leads  us  to  perfection — as  one  who 
knew  it  well  testifies  by  the  words,  "The  Law  of  the  Lord  is 
perfect  restoring  the  soul;  the  testimonies  of  the  Lord  are  faithful 
making  wise  the  simple"1 — recommends  none  of  these  things 
(such  as  self-torture,  flight  from  society  etc.).  On  the  contrary, 
it  aims  at  man's  following  the  path  of  moderation,  in  accordance 
with  the  dictates  of  nature,  eating,  drinking,  enjoying  legitimate 
sexual  intercourse,  all  in  moderation,  and  living  among  people 
in  honesty  and  uprightness,  but  not  dwelling  in  the  wilderness 
or  in  the  mountains,  or  clothing  oneself  in  garments  of  hair  and 
wool,  or  afflicting  the  body.  The  Law  even  warns  us  against 
these  practices,  if  we  interpret  it  according  to  what  tradition  tells 
us  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  concerning  the  Nazarite,  "And 
he  (the  priest)  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  because  he  hath 
sinned  against  the  soul." 2  The  Rabbis  ask,  "Against  what  soul 
has  he  sinned?  Against  his  own  soul,  because  he  has  deprived 
himself  of  wine.  Is  this  not  then  a  conclusion  a  minori  ad  ma- 
jus?  If  one  who  deprives  himself  merely  of  wine  must  bring 
an  atonement,  how  much  more  incumbent  is  it  upon  one  who 
denies  himself  every  enjoyment."3 

By  the  words  of  our  prophets  and  of  the  sages  of  our  Law, 
we  see  that  they  were  bent  upon  moderation  and  the  care  of 
their  souls  and  bodies,  in  accordance  with  what  the  Law  pre- 
scribes and  with  the  answer  which  God  gave  through  His 


1  Ps.  XIX,  9. 

2  Num.  VI,  11. 

3  Nazir,  19a,  22a;  Ta'anit,  lla;  Baba  Eamma,  91b;  Nedarim,  lOa;  cf. 
M.'s  Commentary  on  Abot,  V,  15. 


64  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

prophet  to  those  who  asked  whether  the  fast-day  once  a  year 
should  continue  or  not.  They  asked  Zechariah,  "Shall  I  weep 
in  the  fifth  month  with  abstinence  as  I  have  done  already  these 
many  years?" l  His,  answer  was,  "When  ye  fasted  and  mourned 
in  the  fifth  and  in  the  seventh  (month)  already  these  seventy 
years,  did  ye  in  anywise  fast  for  me,  yea  for  me?  And  if  ye 
do  eat  and  if  ye  do  drink  are  ye  not  yourselves  those  that  eat 
and  yourselves  those  that  drink?"2  After  that,  he  enjoined 
upon  them  justice  and  virtue  alone,  and  not  fasting,  when  he 
said  to  them,  "Thus  hath  said  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Execute 
justice  and  show  kindness  and  mercy  every  man  to  his  brother." 3 
He  said  further,  "Thus  hath  said  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  fast- 
day  of  the  fourth,  and  the  fast-day  of  the  fifth,  and  the  fast  of 
seventh,  and  the  fast  of  the  tenth  (month)  shall  become  to  the 
house  of  Judah  gladness,  and  joy,  and  merry  festivals;  only  love 
ye  truth  and  peace."4.  Know  that  by  "truth"  the  intellectual 
virtues  are  meant,  for  they  are  immutably  true,  as  we  have  ex- 
plained in  Chapter  II,  and  that  by  "peace"  the  moral  virtues 
are  designated,  for  upon  them  depends  the  peace  of  the  world. 
But  to  resume.  Should  those  of  our  co-religionists — and  it 
is  of  them  alone  that  I  speak — who  imitate  the  followers  of 
other  religions,  maintain  that  when  they  torment  their  bodies, 
and  renounce  every  joy,  that  they  do  so  merely  to  discipline  the 
faculties  of  their  souls  by  inclining  somewhat  to  the  one  ex- 
treme, as  is  proper,  and  in  accordance  with  our  own  recommen- 
dations in  this  chapter,  our  answer  is  that  they  are  in  error, 
as  I  shall  now  demonstrate.  The  Law  did  not  lay  down  its 
prohibitions,  or  enjoin  its  commandments,  except  for  just  this 
purpose,  namely,  that  by  its  disciplinary  effects  we  may  per- 
sistently maintain  the  proper  distance  from  either  extreme.  For, 
the  restrictions  regarding  all  the  forbidden  foods,  the  prohibitions 
of  illicit  intercourse,  the  fore-warning  against  prostitution,  the 
duty  of  performing  the  legal  marriage-rites — which,  nevertheless, 
does  not  permit  intercourse  at  all  times,  as,  for  instance,  during 
the  period  of  menstruation,  and  after  child-birth,  besides  its 


'  Zech.  VII,  3.  2  jWd.,  VII,  6.  3  iud.,  VII,  9. 

«  Ibid.,  VIII,  9. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  65 

being  otherwise  restricted  by  our  sages,  and  entirely  interdicted 
during  the  daytime,  as  we  have  explained  in  the  Tractate  San- 
hedrin — all  of  these  God  commanded  in  order  that  we  should 
keep  entirely  distant  from  the  extreme  of  the  inordinate  in- 
dulgence of  the  passions,  and,  even  departing  from  the  exact 
medium,  should  incline  somewhat  towards  self-denial,  so  that 
there  may  be  firmly  rooted  in  our  souls  the  disposition  for 
moderation.1 

Likewise,  all  that  is  contained  in  the  Law  concerning  the 
giving  of  tithes,  the  gleaning  of  the  harvest,  the  forgotten 
sheaves,  the  single  grapes,  and  the  small  bunches  in  the  vine- 
yards for  the  poor,  the  law  of  the  Sabbatical  year,  and  of  the 
Jubilee,  the  giving  of  charity  according  to  the  wants  of  the 
needy  one,  all  these  approach  the  extreme  of  lavishness  to  be 
practised  in  order  that  we  may  depart  far  from  its  opposite, 
stinginess,  and  thus,  nearing  the  extreme  of  excessive  prodigality, 
there  may  become  instilled  in  us  the  quality  of  generosity.2  If  you 
should  test  most  of  the  commandments  from  this  point  of  view, 
you  would  find  that  they  are  all  for  the  discipline  and  guidance 
of  the  faculties  of  the  soul.  Thus,  the  Law  forbids  revenge, 
the  bearing  of  a  grudge,  and  blood-revenge  by  saying,  "Thou 
shalt  not  avenge  nor  bear  any  grudge";3  "thou  shalt  surely 
unload  with  him"4  (the  ass  of  him  who  hates  you);  "thou  shalt 
surely  help  him  to  lift  them  up  again"5  (thy  brother's  ass  or 
ox  which  has  fallen  by  the  way).  These  commandments  are 
intended  to  weaken  the  force  of  wrath  or  anger.  Likewise,  the 
command,  "Thou  shalt  surely  bring  them  back"6  (thy  brother's 
ox  or  lamb  which  has  gone  astray),  is  meant  to  remove  the 
disposition  of  avarice.  Similarly,  "Before  the  hoary  head  shalt 
thou  rise  up,  and  honor  the  face  of  the  old  man", 7  "Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother"8  etc.,  "thou  shalt  not  depart  from  the 
sentence  which  they  may  tell  thee"9  etc.,  are  intended  to  do 
away  with  boldness,  and  to  produce  modesty.  Then,  in  order 
to  keep  away  from  the  other  extreme,  i.  e.  of  excessive  bashful- 


i  Of.  Moreh,  III,  35,  and  H.  Deot,  III.        2  Cf.  Moreh,  III,  39.        3  Lev. 
XIX,  18.  4  Ex.  XXIII,  5.  s  Deut.  XXII,  4.  e  jjy.,  XXII,  1. 

7  Lev.  XIX,  32.  »  Ex.  XX,  12.  »  Deut.  XVII,  11. 

E 


66  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

ness,  we  are  told,  "Thou  shalt  indeed  rebuke  thy  neighbor"  etc.,1 
"thou  shalt  not  fear  him"2  (the  false  prophet)  etc.,  so  that  ex- 
cessive bashfulness,  too,  should  disappear,  in  order  that  we  pursue 
the  medium  course.  Should,  however,  anyone — who  would  with- 
out doubt  be  foolish  if  he  did  so — try  to  enforce  these  commands 
with  additional  rigor,  as,  for  instance,  by  prohibiting  eating  and 
drinking  more  than  does  the  Law,  or  by  restricting  connubial 
intercourse  to  a  greater  degree,  or  by  distributing  all  of  his 
money  among  the  poor,  or  using  it  for  sacred  purposes  more 
freely  than  the  Law  requires,  or  by  spending  it  entirely  upon 
sacred  objects  and  upon  the  sanctuary,  he  would  indeed  be 
performing  improper  acts,  and  would  be  unconsciously  going  to 
either  one  or  the  other  extreme,  thus  forsaking  completely  the 
proper  mean.  In  this  connection,  I  have  nerver  heard  a  more 
remarkable  saying  than  that  of  the  Rabbis,  found  in  the 
Palestinian  foUmuA,  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  treatise  Nedarim, 
where  they  greatly  blame  those  who  bind  themselves  by  oaths 
and  vows,  in  consequence  of  which  they  are  fettered  like  prisoners. 
The  exact  words  they  use  are,  "Said  Rabbi  Iddai,  in  the  name 
of  Rabbi  Isaac,  'Dost  thou  not  think  that  what  the  Law  pro- 
hibits is  sufficient  for  thee  that  thou  must  take  upon  thyself 
additional  prohibitions?' "  3 

From  all  that  we  have  stated  in  this  chapter,  it  is  evident 
that  it  is  man's  duty  to  aim  at  performing  acts  that  observe 
the  proper  mean,  and  not  to  desist  from  them  by  going  to  one 
extreme  or  the  other,  except  for  the  restoration  of  the  soul's 
health  by  having  recourse  to  the  opposite  of  that  from  which 
the  soul  is  suffering.  So,  just  as  he  who,  acquainted  with  the 
science  of  medicine,  upon  noting  the  least  sign  of  a  change  for 
the  worse  in  his  health,  does  not  remain  indifferent  to  it,  but 
prevents  the  sickness  from  increasing  to  a  degree  that  will  re- 
quire recourse  to  violent  remedies,  and  just  as  when  a  man, 
feeling  that  one  of  his  limbs  has  become  affected,  carefully  nurses 
it,  refraining  from  things  that  are  injurious  to  it,  and  applying 
every  remedy  that  will  restore  it  to  its  healthy  condition,  or  at 


«  Lev.  XIX,  17.  *  Deut.  XVIII,  22.  3  Yer.  Nedarim,  IX,  1; 

ed.  Krotoschin,  41  b: 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— IV  67 

least  keep  it  from  getting  worse,  likewise,  the  moral  man  will 
constantly  examine  his  characteristics,  weigh  his  deeds,  and  daily 
investigate  his  psychic  condition;  and  if,  at  any  time,  he  finds 
his  soul  deviating  to  one  extreme  or  another,  he  will  immediately 
hasten  to  apply  the  proper  remedy,  and  not  suffer  an  evil 
aptitude  to  acquire  strength,  as  we  have  shown,  by  a  constant 
repetition  of  that  evil  action  which  it  occasioned.  He  is,  like- 
wise, bound  to  be  mindful  of  his  defects,  and  constantly  to  endeavor 
to  remedy  them,  as  we  have  said  above,  for  it  is  impossible  for 
any  man  to  be  free  from  all  faults.1  Philosophers  tell  us 
that  it  is  most  difficult  and  rare  to  find  a  man  who,  by  his 
nature,  is  endowed  with  every  perfection,  moral  as  well  as 
mental.2  This  thought  is  expressed  often  in  the  prophetical 
books,  as,  "Behold  in  his  servants  he  putteth  no  trust,  and  his 
angels  he  chargeth  with  folly",3  "How  can  man  be  justified 
with  God?  or  how  can  be  pure  one  that  is  born  of  woman?"4, 
and  Solomon  says  of  mankind  in  general,  "For  no  man  is  so 
righteous  upon  earth  that  he  should  do  always  good,  and  never  sin".5 
Thou  knowest,  also,  that  God  said  to  our  teacher  Moses, 
the  master  of  former  and  later  ages,  "Because  ye  have  not 
confided  in  me,  to  sanctity  me" 6,  "because  ye  rebelled  against 
my  order  at  the  waters  of  Meribah"7,  "because  ye  did  not 
sanctify  me".s  All  this  (God  said)  although  the  sin  of  Moses 
consisted  merely  in  that  he  departed  from  the  moral  mean  of 
patience  to  the  extreme  of  wrath  in  so  far  as  he  exclaimed, 
"Hear  now  ye  rebels"9  etc.,  yet  for  this  God  found  fault  with 
him  that  such  a  man  as  he  should  show  anger  in  the  presence 
of  the  entire  community  of  Israel,  where  wrath  is  unbecoming. 
This  was  a  profanation  of  God's  name,  because  men  imitated 
the  words  and  conduct  of  Moses,  hoping  thereby  to  attain 
temporal  and  eternal  happiness.  How  could  he,  then,  allow  his 
wrath  free  play,  since  it  is  a  pernicious  characteristic,  arising, 
as  we  have  shown,  from  an  evil  psychic  condition?  The  divine 

1  Cf.  Moreh,  III,  36. 

2  Cf.  M.'s   Commentary  on  Abot,  V,  14   (Rawicz,    Commentar,   p.  100). 
See  Eth.  Nic.,  VII,  1,  "it  is  a  rare  thing  for  a  man  to  be  godlike". 

3  Job  IV,  18.        *  Ibid.,  XXV,  4.        *  Eccl.  VII,  20.        •  Num.  XX,  12. 
i  Ibid.,  XX,  24.  s  Deut.  XXXII,  51.  9  Num.  XX,  10. 


68  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

words,  ,,Ye  (Israel)  have  rebelled  against  me"  are,  however,  to 
be  explained  as  follows.  Moses  was  not  speaking  to  ignorant 
and  vicious  people,  but  to  an  assembly,  the  most  insignificant 
of  whose  women,  as  the  sages  put  it,  were  on  a  plane  with 
Ezekiel,  the  son  of  Buzi.1  So,  when  Moses  said  or  did  any- 
thing, they  subjected  his  words  or  actions  to  the  most  searching 
examination.2  Therefore,  when  they  saw  that  he  waxed  wrath- 
ful, they  said,  "He  has  no  moral  imperfection,  and  did  he  not 
know  that  God  is  angry  with  us  for  demanding  water,  and  that 
we  have  stirred  up  the  wrath  of  God,  he  would  not  have  been 
angry  with  us".  However,  we  do  not  find  that  when  God  spoke 
to  Moses  about  this  matter  He  was  angry,  but  on  the  contrary, 
said,  "Take  the  staff  .  . .  and  give  drink  to  the  congregation 
and  their  cattle".3 

We  have,  indeed,  digressed  from  the  subject  of  this  chapter, 
but  have,  I  hope,  satisfactorily  solved  one  of  the  most  difficult 
passages  of  Scripture  concerning  which  there  has  been  much 
arguing  in  the  attempt  to  state  exactly  what  the  sin  was  which 
Moses  committed.  Let  what  others  have  said  be  compared 
with  our  opinion,  and  the  truth  will  surely  prevail. 

Now,  let  me  return  to  my  subject.  If  a  man  will  always 
carefully  discriminate  as  regards  his  actions,  directing  them  to 
the  medium  course,  he  will  reach  the  highest  degree  of  per- 
fection possible  to  a  human  being,  thereby  approaching  God,4 
and  sharing  in  His  happiness.  This  is  the  most  acceptable  way 
of  serving  God  which  the  sages,  too,  had  in  mind  when  they 
wrote  the  words,  "He  who  ordereth  his  course  aright  is  worthy 
of  seeing  the  salvation  of  God,  as  it  is  said,  'to  him  that  ordereth 
his  course  aright  will  I  show,  will  I  show  the  salvation  of 
God!'5  Do  not  read  wesam  but  wesJiam  derek".6  Shumah 
means  "weighing"  ajid  "valuation".  This  is  exactly  the  idea 
which  we  have  explained  in  this  chapter. 

This  is  all  we  think  necessary  to  be  said  on  this  subject. 

1  Mekilta  to  r6»3  (Ex.  XV,  2).  2  See  Moreh,  I,  4,  on  the  inter- 

pretation of  Ex.  XXIII,  8.  3  Num.  XX,  8. 

4  See  below,  c.  VII,  n.  5  a.  On  nearness  to  God  (nimpnn),  see  Cohen, 
Charakteristik,  etc.,  in  Moses  b.  Maimon,  vol.  I,  pp.  106,  and  124. 

*  Ps.  L,  23.  e  Sotah,  5b;  Mo'ed  Katan,  5a. 


OHAPTEE  V 

CONCERNING  THE  APPLICATION  OF  MAN'S  PSYCHIC 
FACULTIES  TOWARDS  THE  ATTAINMENT  OF  A  SINGLE  GOAL  i 

As  we  have  explained  in  the  preceding  chapter,  it  is  the 
duty  of  man  to  subordinate  all  the  faculties  of  his  soul  to  his 
reason.  He  must  keep  his  mind's  eye  fixed  constantly  upon 
one  goal,  namely,  the  attainment  of  the  knowledge  of  God2 
(may  He  be  blessed!),  as  far  as  it  is  possible  for  mortal  man 
to  know  Him.  Consequently,  one  must  so  adjust  all  his  actions, 
his  whole  conduct,  and  even  his  very  words,  that  they  lead  to 
this  goal,  in  order  that  none  of  his  deeds  be  aimless,  and  thus 
retard  the  attainment  of  that  end.  So,  his  only  design  in 
eating,  drinking,  cohabiting,  sleeping,  waking,  moving  about, 
and  resting  should  be  the  preservation  of  bodily  health,  while, 
in  turn,  the  reason  for  the  latter  is  that  the  soul  and  its 
agencies  may  be  in  sound  and  perfect  condition,  so  that  he 
may  readily  acquire  wisdom,  and  gain  moral  and  intellectual 
virtues,  all  to  the  end  that  man  may  reach  the  highest  goal 
of  his  endeavors. 

Accordingly,  man  will  not  direct  his  attention  merely  to 
obtain  bodily  enjoyment,  choosing  of  food  and  drink  and  the 
other  things  of  life  only  the  agreeable,  but  he  will  seek  out 
the  most  useful,  being  indifferent  whether  it  be  agreeable  or 
not.  There  are,  indeed,  times  when  the  agreeable  may  be 


1  For  a  discussion  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,    see  Jaraczewski, 
ZPhKr,  XL VI,  pp.  2—13,  and  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  105  S. 

2  Cf.  Ibn  Baud,  Emunah  Eamah,  III,  and  Moreh,  III,  51.    See  I.  Fried- 
laender,  Der  Stil  des  Maimonides,  in  Moses  b.  Maimon,  I,  p.  430. 


70  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

used  from  a  curative  point  of  view,  as,  for  instance,  when 
one  suffers  from  loss  of  appetite,  it  may  be  stirred  up  by  highly 
seasoned  delicacies  and  agreeable,  palatable  food.  Similarly, 
one  who  suffers  from  melancholia  may  rid  himself  of  it  by 
listening  to  singing  and  all  kinds  of  instrumental  music,  by 
strolling  through  beautiful  gardens  and  splendid  buildings,  by 
gazing  upon  beautiful  pictures,  and  other  things  that  enliven 
the  mind,  and  dissipate  gloomy  moods.  The  purpose  of  all  this 
is  to  restore  the  healthful  condition  of  the  body,  but  the  real 
object  in  maintaining  the  body  in  good  health  is  to  acquire 
wisdom.  Likewise,  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  the  main  design 
in  its  acquisition  should  be  to  expend  it  for  noble  purposes, 
and  to  employ  it  for  the  maintenance  of  the  body  and  the  pre- 
servation of  life,  so  that  its  owner  may  obtain  a  knowledge  of 
G-od,  in  so  far  as  that  is  vouchsafed  unto  man. 

From  this  point  of  view,  the  study  of  medicine  has  a  very 
great  influence  upon  the  acquisition  of  the  virtues  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  God,  as  well  as  upon  the  attainment  of  true, 
spiritual  happiness.  Therefore,  its  study  and  acquisition  are 
pre-eminently  important  religious  activities,  and  must  not  be 
ranked  in  the  same  class  with  the  art  of  weaving,  or  the  science 
of  architecture,  for  by  it  one  learns  to  weigh  one's  deeds,  and 
thereby  human  activities  are  rendered  true  virtues.  The  man 
who  insists  upon  indulging  in  savory,  sweetsmelling  and  palat- 
able food — although  it  be  injurious,  and  possibly  may  lead  to 
serious  illness  or  sudden  death— ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  be 
classed  with  the  beasts.  His  conduct  is  not  that  of  a  man  in 
so  far  as  he  is  a  being  endowed  with  understanding,  but  it  is 
rather  the  action  of  a  man  in  so  far  as  he  is  a  member  of  the 
animal  kingdom,  and  so  "he  is  like  the  beasts  who  perish".1 
Man  acts  like  a  human  being  only  when  he  eats  that  which 
is  wholesome,  at  times  avoiding  the  agreeable,  and  partaking  of 
the  disagreeable  in  his  search  for  the  beneficial.  Such  conduct 
is  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  by  these  acts 
man  is  distinguished  from  all  other  beings.  Similarly,  if  a  man 
satisfy  his  sexual  passions  whenever  he  has  the  desire,  regardless 

i  Ps.  XLIX,  13. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— V  71 

of  good    or    ill    effects,    he    acts    as   a  brute,   and   not   as  a 
man.1 

It  is  possible,  however,  for  one  to  shape  one's  conduct  entirely 
from  the  point  of  view  of  utility,  as  we  have  stated,  with  no 
aim  beyond  that  of  maintaining  the  health  of  the  body,  or 
guarding  against  disease.  Such  a  one  does  not  deserve  to  be 
called  virtuous,  for,  just  as  he  strives  for  the  enjoyment  of  good 
health,  another  like  him  may  have  as  his  aim  the  gratification 
of  eating,  or  of  sexual  intercourse,  none  of  which  actions  leads 
towards  the  true  goal.  The  real  duty  of  man  is,  that  in  adopting 
whatever  measures  he  may  for  his  well-being  and  the  pre- 
servation of  his  existence  in  good  health,  he  should  do  so  with 
the  object  of  maintaining  a  perfect  condition  of  the  instruments 
of  the  soul,  which  are  the  limbs  of  the  body,  so  that  his  soul 
may  be  unhampered,  and  he  may  busy  himself  in  acquiring  the 
moral  and  mental  virtues.  So  it  is  with  all  the  sciences  and 
knowledge  man  may  learn.  Concerning  those  which  lead  directly 
to  this  goal,  there  is  naturally  no  question;  but  such  subjects 
as  mathematics,  the  study  of  conic  sections,2  mechanics,  the 
various  problems  of  geometry,3  hydraulics,  and  many  others  of 
a  similar  nature,  which  do  not  tend  directly  towards  that  goal, 
should  be  studied  for  the  purpose  of  sharpening  the  mind,  and 
training  the  mental  faculties  by  scientific  investigations,  so  that 
man  may  acquire  intellectual  ability  to  distinguish  demonstra- 
tive proofs  from  others,  whereby  he  will  be  enabled  to  com- 
prehend the  essence  of  God.  Similarly,  in  regard  to  man's 
conversation,  he  should  speak  only  of  those  things  that  will  be 
conducive  to  the  true  welfare  of  his  soul  and  body,  or  that 
will  tend  to  avert  injury  from  them,  whether  his  words  concern 
themselves  with  science,  or  virtue,  or  praise  of  virtue  or  of  a 
virtuous  man,  or  with  censure  of  vice  or  of  a  vicious  person;  for 
to  express  contempt  for  those  who  are  loaded  with  vice,  or  to 

i  Cf.  H.  Deot,  III,  2,  and  Moreh,  III.  8,  "Those  who  desire  to  be  men 
in  truth,  and  not  brutes,  having  only  the  appearance  and  shape  of  men, 
must  constantly  endeavor  to  reduce  the  wants  of  the  body,  such  as  eating, 
cohabiting,  drinking,  anger,  and  all  vices  originating  in  lust  and  passion." 

'  See  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  p.  38,  n.  1. 

3  See  Sachs,  Beitrage,  vol.  II,  p.  78;  and  Rawicz,  Commentar,  p.  22. 


72  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

depict  their  deeds  as  contemptible — if  done  for  the  purpose  of 
disparaging  them  in  the  eyes  of  other  men  who  may  avoid 
them,  and  not  do  as  they  do — is  indeed  a  virtuous  duty. 
Does  not  Scripture  say,  "After  the  doings  of  the  land  of 

Egypt ye  shall  not  do, and  after  the  doings 

of  the  land  of  Canaan"?1  Also,  the  story  of  the  Sodomites 
and  all  the  passages  occuring  in  Scripture,  which  censure  those 
laden  with  vice,  and  represent  their  doings  as  disgraceful,  and 
those  passages  which  praise  and  hold  the  good  in  high  esteem, 
endeavor,  as  I  have  said,  to  induce  man  to  follow  the  paths 
of  the  righteous,  and  to  shun  the  way  of  the  wicked. 

If  man  has  this  as  his  ideal,  he  will  dispense  with  many  of 
his  customary  deeds,  and  refrain  from  a  great  deal  of  ordinary 
conversation.2  He  who  follows  this  line  of  conduct  will  not 
trouble  himself  with  adorning  his  walls  with  golden  ornaments, 
nor  with  decorating  his  garments  with  golden  fringe,  unless  it  be 
for  the  purpose  of  enlivening  his  soul,  and  thus  restoring  it  to 
health,  or  of  banishing  sickness  from  it,  so  that  it  shall  become 
clear  and  pure,  and  thus  be  in  the  proper  condition  to  acquire 
wisdom.  Therefore,  our  Rabbis  of  blessed  memory  say,  "It  is 
becoming  that  a  sage  should  have  a  pleasant  dwelling,  a  beauti- 
ful wife,  and  domestic  comfort";3  for  one  becomes  weary,  and 
one's  mind  dulled  by  continued  mental  concentration  upon  difficult 
problems.  Thus,  just  as  the  body  becomes  exhausted  from  hard 
labor,  and  then  by  rest  and  refreshment  recovers,  so  is  it 
necessary  for  the  mind  to  have  relaxation  by  gazing  upon 
pictures  and  other  beautiful  objects,  that  its  weariness  may  be 
dispelled.  Accordingly,  it  is  related  that  when  the  Rabbis  be- 
came exhausted  from  study,  they  were  accustomed  to  engage  in 
entertaining  conversation 4  (in  order  to  refresh  themselves).  From 
this  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  use  of  pictures  and  embroideries 
for  beautifying  the  house,  the  furniture,  and  the  clothes  is  not 
to  be  considered  immoral  nor  unnecessary. 

Know  that  to  live  according  to  this  standard  is  to  arrive  at 


i  Lev.  XVIII,  3.  »  See  S.  Deot,  II,  4,  and  5,  for  a  further 

discussion  of  this  subject.  3  Sh.abbat,  25b. 

4  Cf.  ibid.,  30b  :  (3i  Nfiuvm  «n^tt  io«  pnl?  irb  nnsn  '»p»  mm  «n  ^. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— V  73 

a  very  high  degree  of  perfection,  which,  in  consequence  of  the 
difficulty  of  attainment,  only  a  few,  after  long  and  continuous 
perseverance  on  the  paths  of  virtue,  have  succeeded  in  reaching. 
If  there  be  found  a  man  who  has  accomplished  this — that  is 
one  who  exerts  all  the  faculties  of  his  soul,  and  directs  them 
towards  the  sole  ideal  of  comprehending  God,  using  all  his 
powers  of  mind  and  body,  be  they  great  or  small,  for  the  at- 
tainment of  that  which  leads  directly  or  indirectly  to  virtue — I 
would  place  him  in  a  rank  not  lower  than  that  of  the  prophets. 
Such  a  man,  before  he  does  a  single  act  or  deed,  considers  and 
reflects  whether  or  not  it  will  bring  him  to  that  goal,  and  if  it 
will,  then,  and  then  only,  does  he  do  it. 

Such  striving  does  the  Almighty  require  of  us,  according  to 
the  words,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might",1  that  is,  with  all 
the  faculties  of  thy  soul,  each  faculty  having  as  its  sole  ideal  the 
love  of  God.2  The  prophets,  similarly,  urge  us  on  in  saying,  "In 
all  thy  ways  know  Him",3  in  commenting  upon  which  the  sages 
said,  "even  as  regards  a  transgression  (of  the  ritual  or  cere- 
monial law),"4  meaning  thereby  that  thou  shouldst  set  for  every 
action  a  goal,  namely,  the  truth,  even  though  it  be,  from  a 
certain  point  of  view,  a  transgression.5  The  sages  of  blessed 
memory,  too,  have  summed  up  this  idea  in  so  feAv  words  and 

«  Deut.  YI,  5. 

2  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  39  (end)  which  refers  to  this  passage  in  the  Perakim, 
and  to  the  Mishneh  Torah  (Yesode  ha-Torah,  II,  2). 

3  Prov.  Ill,  6. 

4  BeraJcot,  63a.    This  does  not  imply  that  the  end  justifies  the  means; 
that  crime  may  be  committed  to  bring  about  religious  or  charitable  ends. 
It   refers   only   to   the   violation  of  the  ceremonial  or  ritual  laws,  as  the 
breaking  of  the  Sabbath,  and  eating  on  Yom  Kippur,  for  the  sake  of  saving 
life,  etc.  Cf.  Ketubot,  5  a,    "You  must  remove  debris  to  save  a  life  on  the 
Sabbath" ;  and  Shabbat,  30  b,  ''Better  to  extinguish  the  light  on  the  Sabbath 
than    to    extinguish   life,    which    is  God's   light",    etc.    The  distinction  in 
regard   to    the   various    kinds    of  transgressions   which  M.  makes    below, 
Chapter  VI,  pp.  76—78,  applies  here.    See  Shemonah  Perakim,  ed.  Wolf, 
1876,  p.  53,  n.  5. 

s  Cf.  M.'s  Commentary  on  Berakot,  IX,  5:  3Wn  -W3  *p!r  MBD  pa!?  ^33 
jnn  12P31.  Cf.  also  his  Commentary  on  Abot,  V,  20  (Rawicz,  Commentar, 
p.  108),  and  Moreh,  III,  22  (end). 


74  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONTDES 

so  concisely,  at  the  same  time  elucidating  the  whole  matter 
with  such  complete  thoroughness,  that  when  one  considers  the 
brevity  with  which  they  expressed  this  great  and  mighty  thought 
in  its  entirety,  about  which  others  have  written  whole  books 
and  yet  without  adequately  explaining  it,  one  truly  recognizes 
that  the  Rabbis  undoubtedly  spoke  through  divine  inspiration. 
This  saying  is  found  among  their  precepts  (in  this  tractate), 
and  is,  "Let  all  thy  deeds  be  done  for  the  sake  of  God".1 

This,  then,  is  the  thought  we  have  been  dwelling  upon  in 
the  present  chapter,  and  what  we  have  said  must  be  considered 
sufficient  for  the  needs  of  this  introduction.2 
t 


1  Abot,  II,  12. 

2  That  is,  the  Shemonah  Perdkim,  which  constitute  M.'s  introduction  to 
his  Commentary  on  Abot.    See  Introduction,  p.  5. 

H.  Deot,  III,  3  contains  a  summary  of  the  contents  of  the  latter  part 
of  this  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CONCERNING  THE  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  THE  SAINTLY  [OR 

HIGHLY  ETHICAL]  MAN  AND  HIM  WHO  [SUBDUES  HIS 

PASSIONS  AND]  HAS  SELF-RESTRAINT  1 

PHILOSOPHERS  maintain  that  though  the  man  of  self-restraint 
performs  moral  and  praiseworthy  deeds,  yet  he  does  them  desir- 
ing and  craving  all  the  while  for  immoral  deeds,  but,  subduing 
his  passions  and  actively  fighting  against  a  longing  to  do  those 
things  to  which  his  faculties,  his  desires,  and  his  psychic  dis- 
position excite  him,  succeeds,  though  with  constant  vexation 
and  irritation,  in  acting  morally.  The  saintly  man,  however, 
is  guided  in  his  actions  by  that  to  which  his  inclination  and 
disposition  prompt  him,  in  consequence  of  which  he  acts  morally 
from  innate  longing  and  desire.  Philosophers  unanimously  agree 
that  the  latter  is  superior  to,  and  more  perfect  than,  the  one 
who  has  to  curb  his  passions,  although  they  add  that  it  is 
possible  for  such  a  one  to  equal  the  saintly  man  in  many 
regards.  In  general,  however,  he  must  necessarily  be  ranked 
lower  in  the  scale  of  virtue,  because  there  lurks  within  him 
the  desire  to  do  evil,  and,  though  he  does  not  do  it,  yet  be- 
cause his  inclinations  are  all  in  that  direction,  it  denotes  the 
presence  of  an  immoral  psychic  disposition.  Solomon,  also, 
entertained  the  same  idea  when  he  said,  "The  soul  of  the 
wicked  desireth  evil",2  and,  in  regard  to  the  saintly  man's  re- 
joicing in  doing  good,  and  the  discontent  experienced  by  him, 

1  On  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr,  XLVI, 
pp.  13 — 14,  and  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  92ff.  See  Schechter,  Some  Aspects  of 
Rabbinic  Theology,  p.  201  if.,  on  Hasidut  (Saintliness).  Cf.  Eth.,  Nic.,  VII, 
on  Self-control. 

»  Prov.  XXI,  10. 


76  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

who  is  not  innately  righteous,  when  required  to  act  justly,  he 
says,  "It  is  bliss  to  the  righteous  to  do  justice,  but  torment  to 
the  evil-doer".1  This  is  manifestly  an  agreement  between  Scrip- 
ture and  philosophy. 

When,  however,  we  consult  the  Rabbis  on  this  subject,  it 
would  seem  that  they  consider  him  who  desires  iniquity,  and 
craves  for  it  (but  does  not  do  it),  more  praiseworthy  and  perfect 
than  the  one  who  feels  no  torment  at  refraining  from  evil;  and 
they  even  go  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  the  more  praiseworthy 
and  perfect  a  man  is,  the  greater  is  his  desire  to  commit  iniquity, 
and  the  more  irritation  does  he  feel  at  having  to  desist  from 
it.  This  they  express  by  saying,  "Whosoever  is  greater  than 
his  neighbor  has  likewise  greater  evil  inclinations".2  Again, 
as  if  this  were  not  sufficient,  they  even  go  so  far  as  to  say 
that  the  reward  of  him  who  overcomes  his  evil  inclination  is 
commensurate  with  the  torture  occasioned  by  his  resistance, 
which  thought  they  express  by  the  words,  "According  to  the 
labor  is  the  reward".3  Furthermore,  they  command  that  man 
should  conquer  his  desires,  but  they  forbid  one  to  say,  "I,  by 
my  nature,  do  not  desire  to  commit  such  and  such  a  trans- 
gression, even  though  the  Law  does  not  forbid  it".  Rabbi 
Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  summed  up  this  thought  in  the  words, 
"Man  should  not  say,  'I  do  not  want  to  eat  meat  together 
with  milk;  I  do  not  want  to  wear  clothes  made  of  a  mixture 
of  wool  and  linen;  I  do  not  want  to  enter  into  an  incestuous 
marriage',  but  he  should  say,  'I  do  indeed  want  to,  yet  I  must 
not,  for  my  father  in  Heaven  has  forbidden  it'".4 

At  first  blush,  by  a  superficial  comparison  of  the  sayings 
of  the  philosophers  and  the  Rabbis,  one  might  be  inclined  to 
say  that  they  contradict  one  another.  Such,  however,  is  not 
the  case.  Both  are  correct  and,  moreover,  are  not  in  disagree- 
ment in  the  least,  as  the  evils  which  the  philosophers  term  such — 
and  of  which  they  say  that  he  who  has  no  longing  for  them 
is  more  to  be  praised  than  he  who  desires  them  but  conquers 

1  Prov.  XXI,  15.      2  Siikkah,  52a.   See  Lazarus,  Ethics,  II,  pp.  106—107. 
3  Abot,  V,  23. 

*  Sifra  to  Lev.  XX,  26,  and  Midrash  Yalkut  to  Wayikra,  226,  although 
referred  to  as  the  words  of  R.  Eleazar  b.  Azariah. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VI       ,  77 

his  passion — are  things  which  all  people  commonly  agree  are 
evils,  such  as  the  shedding  of  blood,  theft,  robbery,  fraud,  injury 
to  one  who  has  done  no  harm,  ingratitude,  contempt  for  parents, 
and  the  like.  The  prescriptions  against  these  are  called  com- 
mandments (HlSfi),  about  which  the  Rabbis  said,  "If  they  had 
not  already  been  written  in  the  Law,  it  would  be  proper  to 
add  them".1  Some  of  our  later  sages,  who  were  infected  with 
the  unsound  principles  of  the  Mutakallimun, 2  called  these  rational 
laws.3  There  is  no  doubt  that  a  soul  which  has  the  desire  for, 
and  lusts  after,  the  above-mentioned  misdeeds,  is  imperfect,  that 
a  noble  soul  has  absolutely  no  desire  for  any  such  crimes,  and 
experiences  no  struggle  in  refraining  from  them.  When,  how- 
ever, the  Rabbis  maintain  that  he  who  overcomes  his  desire 
has  more  merit  and  a  greater  reward  (than  he  who  has  no 
temptation),  they  say  so  only  in  reference  to  laws  that  are 
ceremonial  prohibitions.  This  is  quite  true,  since,  were  it  not 
for  the  Law,  they  would  not  at  all  be  considered  transgressions. 
Therefore,  the  Rabbis  say  that  man  should  permit  his  soul  to 
entertain  the  natural  inclination  for  these  things,  but  that  the 
Law  alone  should  restrain  him  from  them.  Ponder  over  the 
wisdom  of  these  men  of  blessed  memory  manifest  in  the  examples 
they  adduce.  They  do  not  declare,  "Man  should  not  say,  'I 
have  no  desire  to  kill,  to  steal  and  to  lie,  but  I  have  a  desire 
for  these  things,  yet  what  can  I  do,  since  my  Father  in  heaven 
forbids  it!'"  The  instances  they  cite  are  all  from  the  cere- 
monial law,  such  as  partaking  of  meat  and  milk  together,  wear- 
ing clothes  made  of  wool  and  linen,  and  entering  into  con- 

1  Yoma,  67  b.    See  infra,  p.  78,  n.  2. 

2  See  supra,  p.  41,  and  n.  2;  infra,  p.  90. 

3  M.   refers   especially   to   Saadia   who,   in   Emunot  we-De'ot,   III,  2, 
divides  the  divine  commandments  into  rational  (ni^3tf  mSD),  and  revealed 
laws   (nwo»   niXB).     See   Scheyer,    PsychoL  Syst.   d.  Maim.,  pp.  24   and 
106;    Kaufmann,    Attributenlehre,    p.  503;    Rosin,    Ethik,    p.   93,   n.   5; 
Schreiner,  Der  Kalam,  etc.,  pp.  13-14;  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  p.  45,  n.  1;  Gold- 
ziher,  Kitab  ma'am  al-Nafs,  Berlin  1907,  p.  22* f.,  and  text  p.  17,  n.  6;  and 
Cohen,   Charakteristik,  etc.,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  p.  77  ff.    M.  refers 
also  to  Saadia  in  Moreh,  I,  71 :  ,D"«1pn  ^t*0  ,tnit«n  rttp^>  p»n  ntfi  nbjrotf  71D1 
D^NPBtsrn  |D  Dnynsn  p  ninp1?  D^JP  on.    See  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  336,  n.  1. 
On  Saadia's  relation  to  the  Kalam,  see  Kaufmann,  Hid.,  p.  3,  n.  5,  et  al. 


78  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

sanguinuous  marriages.1  These,  and  similar  enactments  are  what 
Q-od  called  "my  statutes"  (Tllpn),  which,  as  the  Rabbis  say  are 
"statutes  which  I  (God)  have  enacted  for  thee,  which  thou  hast 
no  right  to  subject  to  criticism,  which  the  nations  of  the  world 
attack  and  which  Satan  denounces,  as  for  instance,  the  statutes 
concerning  the  red  heifer,  the  scapegoat,  and  so  forth".2  Those 
transgressions,  however,  which  the  later  sages  called  rational 
laws  are  termed  commandments  (filSfi),  as  the  Rabbis  explained.3 

It  is  now  evident  from  all  that  we  have  said,  what  the  trans- 
gressions are  for  which,  if  a  man  have  no  desire  at  all,  he  is  on 
a  higher  plane  than  he  who  has  a  longing,  but  controls  his 
passion  for  them;  and  it  is  also  evident  what  the  transgres- 
sions are  of  which  the  opposite  is  true.  It  is  an  astonishing 
fact  that  these  two  classes  of  expressions  should  be  shown  to 
be  compatible  with  one  another,  but  their  content  points  to 
the  truth  of  our  explanation. 

This  ends  the  discussion  of  the  subject-matter  of  this  chapter. 


1  See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  94,  n.  4. 

5  Yoma,  67  b:  laro^  Kin  p  nroj  vb  N^NP  D-nai  its>»n  ^SPD  n«  ]xr\  wn 
new  *npn  nx[i]  o»n  ro*oi  toil  D"DT  ni3Bt?i  nmj?  '•I'pii  nit  mias?  ]n  V?«i 
titsw  niyoto  Tin  nVoN  )n  i^«i  jn^p  p-^o  ntoyn  ntDixi  on^s?  :TB>D  jtstww 
•OH  fn  "OK  itti^  iiD'jn  en  inn  n^»o  noNn  wnts'i  nbnts>»n  wvn  j?n^n  ninoi  noy 
]na  imnV  nwi  ^bl  1^1  vnppn  'n. 

3  Of.  Eth.  Nic.,  V,  10,  where  the  "just"  is  spoken  of  as  of  two  kinds, 
the  natural  and  the  conventional,  the  former  corresponding  to  "command- 
ments" (niSD),  and  the  latter  to  "statutes"  (D'pn).  The  former,  says 
Aristotle,  have  everywhere  the  same  force,  while  the  latter  may  be  this 
way  or  that  way  indifferently,  except  after  enactment,  being,  in  short, 
all  matters  of  special  decree,  such  as,  for  instance,  the  price  of  a  ransom 
being  fixed  at  a  mina,  or  sacrificing  a  goat  instead  of  two  sheep,  etc. 

M.  discusses  the  nature  of  the  commandments  in  Moreh,  III,  26.  He 
makes,  as  here,  a  distinction  between  commandments  whose  object  is 
generally  evident,  such  as  the  prohibition  of  murder,  theft,  etc.,  and  those 
whose  object  is  not  generally  clear,  such  as  the  prohibition  of  wearing 
garments  of  wool  and  linen,  boiling  milk  and  meat  together,  etc.  The 
former  he  calls  judgments  (DSB2»D,  termed  niSB  here),  and  the  latter  he 
designates  statutes  or  ordinances  (n^pn).  See  Scheyer,  Dalalat  al  Haiirin, 
Part  III  (Frankfurt  am  Main,  1838),  p.  178,  n.  2;  and  Lazurus,  Ethics,  I, 
pp.  118-119. 


CHAPTER  VII 

CONCERNING  THE  BARRIER  (BETWEEN  GOD  AND  MAN)  AND 
ITS  SIGNIFICATION* 

MANY  passages  are  found  in  the  Midrash,  the  Haggadah, 
and  also  the  Talmud,  which  state  that  some  of  the  prophets 
beheld  God  from  behind  many  barriers,  and  some  from  behind 
only  a  few,  according  to  the  proximity  of  the  prophet  to  Him, 
and  the  degree  of  his  prophetic  power.2  Consequently,  the 
Rabbis  said  that  Moses,  our  teacher,  saw  God  from  behind  a 
single,  clear,  that  is  transparent,  partition.  As  they  express 
it,  "He  (Moses)  looked  through  a  translucent  specularia"  .3  Spe- 
cularia  is  the  name  of  a  mirror  made  of  some  transparent  body 
like  crystal  or  glass,  as  is  explained  at  the  end  of  Tractate 


i  For  a  discussion  of  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Jaraczewski, 
ZPhEr,  XL  VI,  pp.  14—15;  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  113  ff.,  and  Graetz  (Eng.  ed.), 
vol.  Ill,  pp.  483-484  on  M.'s  views  on  prophecy. 

J  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  prophecy,  see  Moreh,  II,  32-48.  See  supra, 
c.  I,  p.  45,  n.  3.  See  also  Bloch,  Charakteristik  und  Inhaltsangabe  des  Moreh 
Nebuchim,  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  35-39. 

3  Yebamot,  49  b:  Sanoi  ivm  n»a  ,;rv«&  nrtw  N^pBDto  ibanoi  owaan  ba 
nvxan   N^pBDKa.     Cf.   also   Leviticus   Rabbah,   I.     In   Perek  Helek,   M. 
describes  the   four  points   in  which  the  prophecy  of  Moses  was  distin- 
guished from^that  of  the  other  prophets.  See  Holzer,  Dogmenlehre,  pp.  24-25. 
Cf.  also  Mishneh  Torah,  Sefer  Madda,  I,  7,  6;  Moreh,  I,  Introduction  (beg.), 
and  II,  35. 

4  The  passage  in  his  commentary  on  Kelim,  XXX,  2  to  which  M.  refers 
is  as  follows  :  mania  r6o  ^s«  Kim  v-vinNO  mtrh  new  i»«  noaen  «sn  tr-^pBOK 
nKT1  »h  •'i^BD  ian  |fi  i«  ix^a  \o  i«  rvaiam  «in»  noaon  mn«  n«T»  nn  (T«I  pen 
n»«  n«e  Tnan  noaen  n^eann  i«npM  "n»Kn  vujr»  ^j>  n«T  «^  |a 

n"j>ie  riwna  toon  ns  ^>j?  ia«i  m»«on  N-n^p&DK  vnin«a  nan 
ni»nn  nona  «in  i»«e  msn  ityB«»  na  n^an  ^j?  *pans  «iian  i 
••ni  mun  '3XT  K^  '•a  nta  pan^  na«»  laa.  Specularia  (Lat.)  =  windowpanes,  a 
window.  Job  28,17,  rvaiat,  glass  =  «^j3SDX  (Ta^Mm).  Cf.  Sukkah,  45  b; 
Gen.  Rabbah,  sect.  91;  etc. 


80  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

Let  me  now  explain  the  above  statement.  In  accordance 
with  what  we  have  made  clear  in  Chapter  II,  virtues  are 
either  intellectual  or  moral.  Similarly,  vices  are  intellectual,  as 
ignorance,  stupidity,  and  want  of  understanding;  or  they  are 
moral  as  inordinate  lust,  pride,  irascibility,  anger,  impudence,  ava- 
rice, and  many  other  similar  defects,  a  list  of  which  we  have 
given  and  explained  in  Chapter  IV.  Each  of  these  defects  is 
as  a  partition  separating  man  from  God,  the  Most  High.  This 
is  what  the  prophet  meant  when  he  said,  "But  your  iniquities 
have  ever  made  a  separation  between  you  and  your  God";1 
which  means  that  our  sins — which,  as  we  have  said,  are  the 
evil  qualities — are  the  partitions  which  separate  us  from  God.2 

Know,  then,  that  no  prophet  received  the  gift  of  prophecy, 
unless  he  possessed  all  the  mental  virtues  and  a  great  majority 
of  the  most  important  moral  ones.  So,  the  Eabbis  said,  "Pro- 
phecy rests  only  upon  the  wise,  the  brave,  and  the  rich".3  By 
the  word  "wise",  they  undoubtedly  refer  to  all  the  mental  per- 
fections. By  "rich",  they  designate  the  moral  perfection  of 
contentment,  for  they  call  the  contented  man  rich,  their  de- 
finition of  the  word  "rich"  being,  "Who  is  rich?  He  who  is 
contented  with  his  lot",4  that  is,  one  who  is  satisfied  with 
what  fortune  brings  him,  and  who  does  not  grieve  on  account 
of  things  which  he  does  not  possess.  Likewise,  "brave"  stands 
for  a  moral  perfection;  that  is,  one  who  is  brave  guides  his 
faculties  in  accordance  with  intelligence  and  reason,  as  we  have 
shown  in  Chapter  V.  The  Rabbis  say,  "Who  is  brave?  He 
who  subdues  his  passions".5 

1  Isa.  LIX,  2. 

2  On  man's  nearness  to  God  being  determined  by  the  conduct  of  man, 
and  God's  removal  from  the  earth  by  sin,  see  Schechter,  Some  Aspects  of 
Rabbinic  Theology,  pp.  33,  83,  232-3,  241. 

3  Nedarim,  38 a;  Shabbat,  92  a:  !?W1  nwi  TQJ  DDn  h*  tib*  mw  narstwi  v« 
nwp.    Of.  Moreh,  II.  32.  *  Abot,  IV,  1. 

5  Ibid.,  IV,  1.  See,  also,  Yesode  ha-Torah,  VII,  1,  for  an  account  of 
the  characteristics  necessary  for  a  prophet.  Cf.  Moreh,  II,  36,  and 
III,  51,  where  M.  briefly  describes  those  who  form  the  class  of  prophets 
as  directing  all  their  minds  to  the  attainment  of  perfection  in  metaphysics, 
devoting  themselves  entirely  to  God,  and  employing  all  their  intellectual 
faculties  in  the  study  of  the  universe,  in  order  to  derive  a  proof  for 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VII  81 

It  is  not,  however,  an  indispensable  requirement  that  a 
prophet  should  possess  all  the  moral  virtues,  and  be  entirely 
free  from  every  defect,  for  we  find  that  Scripture  testifies  in 
reference  to  Solomon,  who  was  a  prophet,  that  "the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  Solomon  in  Gibeon",1  although  we  know  that  he 
had  the  moral  defect  of  lust,  which  is  plainly  evident  from 
the  fact  that  he  took  so  many  wives,  a  vice  springing  from 
the  disposition  of  passion  which  resided  in  his  soul.  It  plainly 
says,  "Did  not  Solomon  sin  by  these  things?"2  Even  David 
— a  prophet,  according  to  the  words,  "To  me  spoke  the  Rock 
of  Israel" 3 — we  find  guilty  of  cruelty,  and,  although  he  exercised 
it  only  against  the  heathens,  and  in  the  destruction  of  non- 
believers,  being  merciful  towards  Israel,  it  is  explicitly  stated 
in  Chronicles  that  God,  considering  him  unworthy,  did  not 
permit  him  to  build  the  Temple,  as  it  was  not  fitting  in  His 
eyes,  because  of  the  many  people  David  caused  to  be  killed. 
So,  God  said  to  him,  "Thou  shalt  not  build  a  house  to  my 
name,  because  much  blood  hast  thou  shed".4  We  find,  also, 
that  Elijah  gave  vent  to  his  anger,  and  although  he  did  so 
only  against  unbelievers,  against  whom  his  wrath  blazed  up, 
the  sages  declared  that  God  took  him  from  the  world,  saying 
to  him,  "He  who  has  so  much  zeal  as  thou  hast  is  not 
fit  to  guide  men,  for  thou  wilt  destroy  them".5  Likewise,  we 
find  that  Samuel  feared  Saul,  and  that  Jacob  was  afraid  to 
meet  Esau.  These  and  similar  characteristics  were  so  many 
partitions  between  the  prophets  (peace  be  unto  them !)  and  God. 
He  of  them  who  had  two  or  three  qualities  which  did  not 
maintain  the  proper  medium,  as  is  explained  in  Chapter  IV, 
is  said  to  have  seen  God  from  behind  two  or  three  partitions. 

Thou  must  not  be  surprised  to  learn,  however,  that  a  few 
moral  imperfections  lessen  the  degree  of  prophetic  inspiration;  in 
fact,  we  find  that  some  moral  vices  cause  prophecy  to  be  entirely 
withdrawn.  Thus,  for  instance,  wrath  may  do  this,  as  our 


the  existence  of  God,  and  to  learn  in  every  way  possible  how  God  rules 
things. 

i  I  K.  Ill,  5  2  Neh.  XIII,  26.  *  II  Sam.  XXIII,  3. 

«  I  Ch.  XXII,  8.  s  Sanhedrin,  113  a. 

F 


82  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

Rabbis  say,  "If  a  prophet  becomes  enraged,  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy departs  from  him".1  They  adduce  proof  for  this  from 
the  case  of  Elisha,  from  whom,  when  he  became  enraged,  pro- 
phecy departed,  until  his  wrath  had  subsided,  at  which  he  ex- 
claimed, "And  now  bring  me  a  musician!"2 

Grief  and  anxiety  may  also  cause  a  cessation  of  prophecy, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  patriarch  Jacob  who,  during  the  days 
when  he  mourned  for  Joseph,  was  deprived  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
until  he  received  the  news  that  his  son  lived,  whereupon  Scripture 
says,  "The  spirit  of  Jacob,  their  father,  revived",3  which  the 
Targum*  renders,  "And  the  spirit  of  prophecy  descended  upon 
their  father,  Jacob".  The  sages,  moreover,  say,  "The  spirit  of 
prophecy  rests  not  upon  the  idle,  nor  upon  the  sad,  but  upon 
the  joyous".5 

When  Moses,  our  teacher,  discovered  that  there  remained  no 
partition  between  himself  and  God  which  he  had  not  removed, 
and  when  he  had  attained  perfection  by  acquiring  every  possible 
moral  and  mental  virtue,  he  sought  to  comprehend  God  in  His 
true  reality,  since^. there  seemed  no  longer  to  be  any  hindrance 
thereto.  He,  therefore,  implored  of  God,  "Show  me,  I  beseech 
Thee,  Thy  glory".6  But  God  informed  him  that  this  was  im- 
possible, as  his  intellect,  since  he  was  a  human  being,  was  still 
influenced  by  matter.  So,  God's  answer  was,  "For  no  man  can 
see  me  and  live".7  Thus,  there  remained  between  Moses  and 
his  comprehension  of  the  true  essence  of  God  only  one  trans- 
parent obstruction,  which  was  his  human  intellect  still  resident 


i  Pesahim  66  b.     Cf.  Moreh,  II,  36  (end). 

»  II  K.  Ill,  15.    See  Pesahim  117  a.  3  Gen.  XLV,  27. 

1  M.  attached  a  great  deal  of  importance  to  the  Targum  of  Onkelos 
in  the  elucidation  of  many  biblical  passages,  and  refers  to  it  many  times 
in  the  Moreh.  In  Moreh,  I,  27,  he  speaks  of  Onkelos,  the  proselyte,  as 
being  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  languages. 
See  Frankel,  Hodegetik,  p.  322,  and  Bacher,  Die  Bibelexegese  Moses  Maimunis, 
pp.  38-42. 

5  Shabbat,  30 b;  Pesahim,  loc.  cit.:  tibi  fi^s»  ^no  vh  mi»  ru'stwi  yw 
im  -pflo  »b»  n^eo  nnm  -pro  vb  »N-I  nibp  -pro  «"?i  pint?  -pro  *6i  nusj? 
hvf  nnD».    Cf.  Moreh,  II,  36  (end). 
Ex.  XXXIII,  18.  7  ibid.,  XXXIII,  20. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VII  83 

in  matter.  God,  however,  was  gracious  in  imparting  to  him, 
after  his  request,  more  knowledge  of  the  divine  than  he  had 
previously  possessed,  informing  him  that  the  goal  (he  sought) 
was  impossible  of  attainment,  because  he  was  yet  a  human  being. 1 
The  true  comprehension  of  God,  Moses  designates  by  the 
term  "beholding  the  Divine  face",  for,  when  one  sees  another 
person  face  to  face  his  features  become  imprinted  upon  the 
mind,  so  that  one  will  not  confuse  him  whom  he  has  seen  with 
others;  whereas,  if  he  sees  only  his  back,  he  may  possibly 
recognize  him  again,  but  will  more  probably  be  in  doubt,  and 
confuse  him  with  others.  Likewise,  the  true  comprehension  of 
God  is  a  conception  of  the  reality  of  His  existence  fixed  in 
the  mind  (of  the  knower)  which,  as  concerns  this  existence,  is 
a  conception  not  shared  by  any  other  being;  so  that  there  is 
firmly  implanted  in  the  mind  of  the  knower  a  knowledge  of 
God's  existence  absolutely  distinct  from  the  knowledge  the  mind 
has  of  any  other  being  (that  exists).  It  is  impossible,  however, 
for  mortal  man  to  attain  this  high  degree  of  comprehension, 
though  Moses  (peace  be  unto  him)  almost,  but  not  quite,  reached 
it,  which  thought  is  expressed  by  the  words,  "Thou  shalt  see 
my  back  parts".2  I  intend  more  fully  to  discuss  this  subject 
in  my  Book  on  Prophecy.* 

So,  since  the  sages  (peace  be  unto  them)  knew  that  these 


1  The  corporeal  element  in  man  is  a  screen  and  partition  that  prevents 
him  from  perceiving  abstract  ideals,  as  they  are.  It  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  the  human  mind  to  comprehend  the  Divine  Being,  even  though  the 
corporeal  element  were  as  pure  as  that  of  the  spheres.  The  Scriptural 
passages  Ps.  XCVII,  2  and  XVIII,  12  express  in  figurative  language  this 
idea,  that,  on  account  of  our  bodies,  we  are  unable  to  comprehend  God's 
essence  (Moreh,  III,  9). 

»  Ex.  XXXIII,  23.  Cf.  Yesode  ha-Torah,  I,  10.  "But  my  face  shall 
not  be  seen"  (Ex.  XXXIII,  23)  means  that*God's  true  existence,  as  it  is, 
cannot  be  comprehended  (Moreh,  I,  37),  and  "thou  shalt  see  my  back" 
(Ex.  loc.  cit.)  signifies  that!;  God  allowed  Moses  to  see  that  which  follows 
Him,  is  similar  to  Him,  and  is  the  result  of  the  Divine  Will,  i.  e.,  all 
things  created  by  God  (Moreh,  I,  39).  Cf.  also  Moreh,  I,  21  and  54.  See, 
on  the  interpretation  of  "my  back"  ('inN)  and  "my  face"  ("iB),  Kaufmann, 
Attributenlehre,  p.  405,  and  n.  72. 

3  See  supra  c.  I,  p.  45  n.  3. 

F* 


84  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

two  classes  of  vices,  that  is,  the  mental  and  the  moral,  separated 
man  from  God,  and  that  according  to  them  the  rank  of 
the  prophets  varied,  they  (the  Rabbis)  said  of  some  of  their 
own  number,  with  whose  wisdom  and  morality  they  were  ac- 
quainted, "It  is  fitting  that  the  spirit  of  God  should  rest  upon 
them  as  it  did  upon  Moses,  our  teacher".1  Do  not,  however, 
mistake  the  intention  of  the  comparison.  They  did,  indeed, 
compare  them  with  Moses,  for  they  were  far  (God  forbid!)  from 
giving  them  equal  rank.  In  the  same  way  they  speak  of  others, 
characterizing  them  as  being  "like  Joshua". 

This  is  what  we  intended  to  explain  in  this  chapter. 

1  Sukkah,  28  a;  Baba  Batra,  134 a.    See  Kosin,  Ethik,  p.  114,  n.  5. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CONCEKNING  THE  NATURAL  DISPOSITION  OF  MAN  t 

IT  is  impossible  for  man  to  be  born  endowed  by  nature 
from  his  very  birth  with  either  virtue  or  vice,  just  as  it  is  im- 
possible that  he  should  be  born  skilled  by  nature  in  any  part- 
icular art.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  through  natural  causes 
he  may  from  birth  be  so  constituted  as  to  have  a  predilection 
for  a  particular  virtue  or  vice,  so  that  he  will  more  readily 
practise  it  than  any  other.2  For  instance,  a  man  whose  natural 
constitution  inclines  towards  dryness,  whose  brain  matter  is  clear 
and  not  overloaded  with  fluids,  finds  it  much  easier  to  learn, 
remember,  and  understand  things  than  the  phlegmatic  man 
whose  brain  is  encumbered  with  a  great  deal  of  humidity.  But, 
if  one  who  inclines  constitutionally  towards  a  certain  excellence 
is  left  entirely  without  instruction,  and  if  his  faculties  are  not 
stimulated,  he  will  undoubtedly  remain  ignorant.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  one  by  nature  dull  and  phlegmatic,  possessing  an  abun- 
dance of  humidity,  is  instructed  and  enlightened,  he  will,  though 
with  difficulty,  it  is  true,  gradually  succeed  in  acquiring  know- 
ledge and  understanding.  In  exactly  the  same  way,  he  whose 
blood  is  somewhat  warmer  than  is  necessary  has  the  requisite 


1  The  title  applies  only  to  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  which  is  mainly 
a  discussion  of  human  free  will,  and  is  be  supplemented  by  parts  of  M.'s 
Commentary  on  Abot,  by  H.  Teshubah,  V  and  VI,  and  Moreh,  III,  16 — 21. 
On  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  see  Jaraczewski,  ZPhKr,  XL VI,  pp.  15 
— 15;  and  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  62  ff. 

2  Of.  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  1,  "The  virtues,  then,  come  to  be  in  us  neither  by 
nature  nor  in  despite  of  nature,  but  we  are  furnished  with  a  capacity  for 
receiving  them,  and  are  perfected  in  them  through  custom".    This  applies 
to  nations  as  well  as  to  individuals;  see  Pirke  Mosheh,  c.  XXV,  fol.  53 a. 


86  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

quality  to  make  of  him  a  brave  man.  Another,  however,  the 
temperament  of  whose  heart  is  colder  than  it  should  be,  is 
naturally  inclined  towards  cowardice  and  fear,  so  that  if  he 
should  be  taught  and  trained  to  be  a  coward,  he  would  easily 
become  one.  If,  however,  it  be  desired  to  make  a  brave  man 
of  him,  he  can  without  doubt  become  one,  providing  he  receive 
the  proper  training  which  would  require,  of  course,  great 
exertion. 

I  have  entered  into  this  subject  so  thou  mayest  not  believe 
the  absurd  ideas  of  astrologers,  who  falsely  assert  that  the  con- 
stellation at  the  time  of  one's  birth  determines  whether  one  is 
to  be  virtuous  or  vicious,  the  individual  being  thus  necessarily 
compelled  to  follow  out  a  certain  line  of  conduct.  We,  on  the 
contrary,  are  convinced  that  our  Law1  agrees  with  Greek 
philosophy,  which  substantiates  with  convincing  proofs  the  con- 
tention that  man's  conduct  is  entirely  in  his  own  hands,  that 
no  -compulsion  is  exerted,  and  that  no  external  influence  is 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  that  constrains  him  to  be  either 
virtuous  or  vicious,  except  inasmuch  as,  according  to  what  we 
have  said  above,  he  may  be  by  nature  so  constituted  as  to  find 
it  easy  or  hard,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  do  a  certain  thing;  but 
that  he  must  necessarily  do,  or  refrain  from  doing,  a  certain 
thing  is  absolutely  untrue.2  Were  a  man  compelled  to  act  ac- 

»  Of.  Moreh,  HI,  17,  Fifth  Theory. 

1  Saadia  was  the  first  Jewish  philosopher  to  dwell  at  length  upon  the 
question  of  free  will  (Emunot  we-Deot,  III),  being  influenced  by  the  dis- 
cussions of  Arabic  theologians,  although  Philo,  who  generally  followed 
the  system  of  the  Stoics,  professed  a  belief  in  this  doctrine  (Quod  Deus 
Sit  Immutabilis,  ed.  Mangey,  p.  279).  He  was  followed  by  Bahya  (Hobot 
ha-Lebabot,  III,  8);  Ibn  Zaddik  ('Olam  Raton,  p.  69,  ed.  Jellinek,  Leipzig, 
1854);  Yehudah  ha-Levi  (Cuzari,  pt.  V,  ed.  Cassel,  p.  418);  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra  ( Yesod  Morah,  VII);  and  Ibn  Baud  (Emunah  Bamah,  p.  96,  ed.  Weil, 
Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1842).  For  references  to  passages  in  M.'s  works  where 
he  discusses  free  will,  see  p.  85  n.  1.  M.  undoubtedly  had  Eth.  Nic.  Ill 
in  mind  when  he  said  that  "Our  Law  agrees  with  Greek  philosophy". 
See  especially  Eth.  Nic.  Ill,  5.  7,  where  are  found  the  following  statements, 
"So  it  seems  as  has  been  said,  that  man  is  the  originator  of  his  actions", 
and  "if  it  is  in  our  power  to  do  and  to  forbear  doing  what  is  creditable 
or  the  contrary,  and  these  respectively  constitute  the  being  good  or  bad, 
then  the  being  good  or  vicious  characters  is  in  our  power".  See  Rosin, 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  87 

cording  to  the  dictates  of  predestination,  then  the  commands 
and  prohibitions  of  the  Law  would  become  null  and  void,  and 
the  Law  would  be  completely  false,  since  man  would  have  no 
freedom  of  choice  in  what  he ;  does.  Moreover,  it  would  be  use- 
less, in  fact  absolutely  in  vain,  for  man  to  study,  to  instruct, 
or  attempt  to  learn  an  art,  as  it  would  be  entirely  impossible 
for  him,  on  account  of  the  external  force  compelling  him,  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  this  view,  to  keep  from 
doing  a  certain  act,  from  gaining  certain  knowledge,  or  from 
acquiring  a  certain  characteristic.  Reward  and  punishment, 
too,  would  be  pure  injustice,  both  as  regards  man  towards  man, 
and  as  between  God  and  man.1  Suppose,  under  such  conditions, 
that  Simeon  should  kill  Reuben.  Why  should  the  former  be 
punished,  seeing  that  he  was  constrained  to  do  the  killing,  and 
Reuben  was  predestined  to  be  slain?  How  could  the  Almighty, 
who  is  just  and  righteous,  chastise  Simeon  for  a  deed  which  it 
was  impossible  for  him  to  leave  undone,  and  which,  though  he 
strove  with  all  his  might,  he  would  be  unable  to  avoid?  If 
such  were  the  true  state  of  affairs,  all  precautionary  measures, 
such  as  building  houses,  providing  means  of  subsistence,  fleeing 
when  one  fears  danger,  and  so  forth,  would  be  absolutely  use- 
less, for  that  which  is  decreed  beforehand  must  necessarily  happen. 
This  theory  is,  therefore,  positively  unsound,  contrary  to  reason 
and  common  sense,  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
religion,  and  attributes  injustice  to  God  (far  be  it  from  Him!). 
In  reality,  the  undoubted  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  man  has 
full  sway  over  all  his  actions.  If  he  wishes  to  do  a  thing,  he 
does  it;  if  he  does  not  wish  to  do  it,  he  need  not,  without  any 
external  compulsion  controlling  him.  Therefore,  God  very  properly 
commanded  man,  saying,  "See  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life 
and  the  good,  death  and  evil  ....  therefore  choose  thou  life",2 

Ethik,  p.  5,  n.  4,  and  p.  66,  n.  1.  Consult  on  this  subject  I.  Broyde,  in 
J.  E;  vol.  V,  art.  Free  Will,  and  works  mentioned  there ;  Wolff,  Acht  Ca- 
pitel,  Excursus,  III,  pp.  84 — 85;  and  Cohen,  Characteristik,  etc.,  in  Moses 
ben  Maimon,  I,  p.  76. 

1  M.  mentions  the  same  argument  in  the  Moreh,  but  it  had  often  been 
advanced  before  him.    See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  67,  n.  2. 

2  Deut.  XXX,  15.  19.    Cf.  H.  Teshubah,  V,  3. 


88  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

giving  us,  as  regards  these,  freedom  of  choice.  Consequently, 
punishment  is  inflicted  upon  those  who  disobey,  and  reward 
granted  to  the  obedient,  as  it  is  said,  "If  thou  wilt  hearken", 
and  "If  thou  wilt  not  hearken".1  Learning  and  teaching  are 
also  necessary,  according  to  the  commands,  "Ye  shall  teach 
them  to  your  children",1*  "and  ye  shall  do  them  and  observe 
to  do  them",2  and,  similarly,  all  the  other  passages  referring  to 
the  study  of  the  commandments.  It  is  also  necessary  to  take 
all  the  precautionary  measures  laid  down  in  the  Law,  such  as, 
"Thou  shalt  make  a  battlement  for  thy  roof;  that  thou  bring 
not  blood  upon  thy  house",3  "lest  he  die  in  the  battle",4  "wherein 
shall  he  sleep?"5,  and  "no  man  shall  take  to  pledge  the  nether 
or  the  upper  millstone",6  and  many  other  passages  in  regard  to 
precautions  found  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.7 

The  statement  found  in  the  sayings  of  the  Rabbis,  "All  is 
in  the  power  of  God  except  the  fear  of  God"  8  is,  nevertheless, 
true,  and  in  accord  with  what  we  have  laid  down  here.  Men 
are,  however,  very  often  prone  to  err  in  supposing  that  many 
of  their  actions,  in  reality  the  result  of  their  own  free  will,  are 
forced  upon  them,  as,  for  instance,  marrying  a  certain  woman, 
or  acquiring  a  certain  amount  of  money.  Such  a  supposition 
is  untrue.  If  a  man  espouses  and  marry  a  woman  legally,  then 
she  becomes  his  lawful  wife,  and  by  his  marrying  her  he  has 
fulfilled  the  divine  command  to  increase  and  multiply.  God, 
however,  does  not  decree  the  fulfillment  of  a  commandment. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  has  consummated  with  a  woman 
an  unlawful  marriage,  he  has  committed  a  transgression.  But 
God  does  not  decree  that  a  man  shall  sin.  Again,  suppose  a 
man  robs  another  of  money,  steals  from  him,  or  cheats  him, 
and  then  uttering  a  false  oath,  denies  it;  if  we  should  say  that 
God  had  destined  that  this  sum  should  pass  into  the  hands  of 
the  one  and  out  of  the  possession  of  the  other,  God  would 


'  Deut.  XI,  27.  28.  i»  Ibid.,  XI,  19.  2  Ibid.,  V,  1.  a  Ibid., 

XXII,  8.  *  Ibid^  XX,  5  or  7.  »  Ex.  XXII,  26.  6  Deut.  XXIV,  6. 

^  See  H.  Teshubah,  V,  4,  and  Moreh,  III,  20;  cf.  Ibn  Baud,  Emunah 
Ramah,  II,  6,  2,  p.  96. 

8  Berakot,  33  b;  Niddah,  16  b;  Megillah,  25  a. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  89 

be  preordaining  an  act  of  iniquity.  Such,  however,  is  not  the 
case,  but  rather  that  all  of  man's  actions,  which  are  subject  to 
his  free  will,  undoubtedly  either  comply  with,  or  transgress, 
God's  commands;  for,  as  has  been  explained  in  Chapter  II,  the 
commands  and  prohibitions  of  the  Law  refer  only  to  those  actions 
with  regard  to  which  man  has  absolute  free  choice  to  do,  or 
refrain  from  doing.  Moreover,  to  this  faculty  of  the  soul  (i.  e. 
the  freedom  of  the  will)  "the  fear  of  God"  is  subservient,  and 
is,  in  consequence,  not  predestined  by  God,  but,  as  we  have 
explained,  is  entirely  in  the  power  of  the  human  free  will. 
By  the  word  "all"  (^OH),  the  Rabbis  meant  to  designate  only 
natural  phenomena  which  are  not  influenced  by  the  will  of  man, 
as  whether  a  person  is  tall  or  short,  whether  it  is  rainy  or  dry, 
whether  the  air  is  pure  or  impure,  and  all  other  such  things 
that  happen  in  the  world,  and  which  have  no  connection  with 
man's  conduct. 

In  making  this  assertion  that  obedience  or  disobedience  to 
the  Law  of  God  does  not  depend  upon  the  power  or  will  of 
God,  but  solely  upon  that  of  man  himself,  the  sages  followed 
the  dictum  of  Jeremiah,  who  said,  "Out  of  the  mouth  of  God 
there  cometh  neither  the  bad  nor  the  good".1  By  the  words 
"the  bad"  he  meant  vice,  and  by  "the  good",  virtue;  and,  ac- 
cordingly, he  maintains  that  God  does  not  preordain  that  any 
man  should  be  vicious  or  virtuous.  Since  this  is  so,  it  be- 
hooves man  to  mourn  and  weep  over  the  sins  and  the  trans- 
gressions he  has  committed,  as  he  has  sinned  of  his  own  free 
will  in  accordance  with  what  the  prophet  says,  "Wherefore 
should  a  living  man  mourn?  Let  every  man  mourn  because  of 
his  sins".2  He  continues,  then,  to  tell  us  that  the  remedy  for 
this  disease  is  in  our  own  hands,  for,  as  our  misdeeds  were  the 
result  of  our  own  free  will,  we  have,  likewise,  the  power  to  repent 


1  Lam.  Ill,  38.    This  verse  is,  however,  generally  translated,  "Out  of 
the  mouth  of  God,  the  Most  High,  cometh  there  not  evil  as  well  as  good?", 
which  is  exactly  the  opposite  of  M.'s  interpretation.     This  verse  is  also 
quoted  in  H.  Teshubah,  V,  2,  where  M.  states  that  it  is   wholly  in  the 
power  of  man  to  be  as  righteous  as  Moses  or  as  wicked  as  Jeroboam. 

2  Lam.  Ill,  39. 


90  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

of  our  evil  deeds,  and  so  he  goes  on  to  say,  "Let  us  search 
through  and  investigate  our  ways,  and  let  us  return  to  the 
Lord.  Let  us  lift  up  our  heart  with  our  hands  to  God,  in  the 
heavens".1 

As  regards  the  theory  generally  accepted  by  people,  and 
likewise  found  in  rabbinical  and  prophetical  writings,  that  man's 
sitting  and  rising,  and  in  fact  all  of  his  movements,  are  governed 
by  the  will  and  desire  of  God,  it  may  be  said  that  this  is  true 
only  in  one  respect.  Thus,  for  instance,  when  a  stone  is  thrown 
into  the  air  and  falls  to  the  ground,  it  is  correct  to  say  that 
the  stone  fell  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  for  it  is  true 
that  God  decreed  that  the  earth  and  all  that  goes  to  make  it 
up,  should  be  the  centre  of  attraction,  so  that  when  any  part 
of  it  is  thrown  into  the  air,  it  is  attracted  back  to  the  centre. 
Similarly,  all  the  particles  of  fire  ascend  according  to  God's 
will,  which  preordained  that  fire  should  go  upward.2  But  it 
is  wrong  to  suppose  that  when  a  certain  part  of  the  earth 
is  thrown  upward  God  wills  at  that  very  moment  that  it 
should  fall.  The  MutdkaUimun^  are,  however,  of  a  different 
opinion  in  this  regard,  for  I  have  heard  them  say  that  the 
Divine  Will  is  constantly  at  work,  decreeing  everything  from 
time  to  time.4  We  do  not  agree  with  them,  but  believe  that 
the  Divine  Will  ordained  everything  at  creation,  and  that  all 
things,  at  all  times,  are  regulated  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
run  their  natural  course,  in  accordance  with  what  Solomon  said, 
"As  it  was,  so  it  will  ever  be,  as  it  was  made  so  it  continues, 
and  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun".5  This  occasioned  the 
sages  to  say  that  all  miracles  which  deviate  from  the  natural 
course  of  events,  whether  they  have  already  occured,  or,  according 
to  promise,  are  to  take  place  in  the  future,  were  fore-ordained 


1  Ibid.,  HI,  40^1.    Of.  H.  Teshubah,  loc.  cit. 

2  Aristotle  uses  the  example  of  a  stone  and  fire,  in  Eth.  Nic.,  II,  1,  to 
show  that  nature  is  not  affected  by  custom.    A  stone  by  custom  can  never 
be  brought  to  ascend,  nor  fire  do  descend.     Moral  virtues  are,  however, 
the  result  of  custom. 

3  See  supra,  c.  I.  p.  41,  n.  2;  and  p.  77. 

*  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  73.  Sixth  Proposition.    See  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  286,  n.  3. 
»  Eccles.  I,  9. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  91 

by  the  Divine  Will  during  the  six  days  of  creation,  nature  being 
then  so  constituted  that  those  miracles  which  were  to  happen 
really  did  afterwards  take  place.  Then,  when  such  an  occurence 
happened  at  its  proper  time,  it  may  have  been  regarded  as  an 
absolute  innovation,  whereas  in  reality  it  was  not.1 

The  Rabbis  expatiate  very  much  upon  this  subject  in  the  Mi- 
drash  KoheUth  and  in  other  writings,  one  of  their  statements  in 
reference  to  this  matter  being,  "Everything  follows  its  natural 
course".2  In  everything  that  they  said,  you  will  always  find  that 
the  Rabbis  (peace  be  unto  them!)  avoided  referring  to  the  Divine 
Will  as  determining  a  particular  event  at  a  particular  time.  When, 
therefore,  they  said  that  man  rises  and  sits  down  in  accordance 
with  the  will  of  God,  their  meaning  was  that,  when  man  was 
first  created,  his  nature  was  so  determined  that  rising  up  and 
sitting  down  were  to  be  optional  to  him;  but  they  as  little  meant 
that  God  wills  at  any  special  moment  that  man  should  or  should 
not  get  up,  as  He  determines  at  any  given  time  that  a  certain 
stone  should  or  should  not  fall  to  the  ground.3  The  sum  and 
substance  of  the  matter  is,  then,  that  thou  shouldst  believe  that 
just  as  God  willed  that  man  should  be  upright  in  stature,  broad- 
chested,  and  have  fingers,  likewise  did  He  will  that  man  should 
move  or  rest  of  his  own  accord,  and  that  his  actions  should  be 

1  M.  reiterates  this  view  of  the  miracles  in  his  Commentary  on  Abot, 
V,  6,  which  enumerates  ten  things  created  on  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath  of 
the  week  of  creation.  See  Lipmann  Heller,  in  Tosefot  Yom-Tob,  on  this 
passage;  and  Hoffman,  Mischnaioth,  Seder  Nezikin,  Berlin,  1889,  p.  353. 
Cf.  Moreh,  I,  66,  and  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  296.  M.  also  supported  this 
view  in  Moreh,  II,  29  where  he  refers  to  Genesis  Rabbah,  V,  4,  and 
Exodus  Rabbah,  XXI,  6,  which  read,  "When  God  created  the  world  He  made 
an  agreement  that  the  sea  should  divide,  the  fire  not  hurt,  the  lions  not 
harm,  the  fish  not  swallow  persons  singled  out  by  God  for  certain  times, 
and  thus  the  whole  order  of  things  changes  whenever  he  finds  it  neces- 
sary." Consult  on  this  subject  Joel,  Moses  Maimonides,  1876,  p.  77 ;  Rosin, 
Ethik,  p.  69,  n.  5;  "Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  Excursus,  IV;  Lazarus,  Ethics,  II, 
p.  77,  n.  1;  Kohler,  art.  Miracles,  in  J.  E.,  vol.  VIII,  pp.  606—607;  Geiger, 
Judaism  and  its  History,  p.  348. 

1  'Abodah  Zarah,  54b.    See  Lazarus,  ibid.,  II,  p.  74 ff. 

3  Cf.  M.'s  Commentary  on  Abot,  IV,  23  (Rawicz,  Commentar,  pp.  89 — 90); 
H.  Teshubah,  V,  4,  and  Moreh,  III,  17,  Fifth  Theory.  See  Rosin,  Ethik, 
p.  69,  n.  6. 


92  THE  ETHICS  OP  MAIMONIDES 

such  as  his  own  free  will  dictates  to  him,  without  any  outside 
influence  or  restraint,  which  fact  God  clearly  states  in  the  truth- 
ful Law,  which  elucidates  this  problem,  when  it  says,  "Behold, 
the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us  to  know  good  and  evil".1  The 
Targum,  in  paraphrasing  this  passage,  explains  the  meaning  of 
the  words  mimmenu  lada'at  tob  wara'.  Man  has  become  the  only 
being  in  the  world  who  possesses  a  characteristic  which  no  other 
being  has  in  common  with  him.  What  is  this  characteristic? 
It  is  that  by  and  of  himself  man  can  distinguish  between  good 
and  evil,  and  do  that  which  he  pleases,  with  absolutely  no 
restraint.  Since,  then,  this  is  so,  it  would  have  even  been  possible 
for  him  to  have  stretched  out  his  hand,  and,  taking  of  the  tree 
of  life,  to  have  eaten  of  its  fruit,  and  thus  live  forever.2 

Since  it  is  an  essential  characteristic  of  man's  makeup  that 
he  should  of  his  own  free  will  act  morally  or  immorally,  doing 
just  as  he  chooses,  it  becomes  necessary  to  teach  him  the  ways 
of  righteousness,  to  command  and  exhort  him,  to  punish  and 
reward  him  according  to  his  deserts.  It  behooves  man  also  to 
accustom  himself  to  the  practice  of  good  deeds,  until  he  acquires 
the  virtues  corresponding  to  those  good  deeds;  and,  furthermore, 
to  abstain  from  evil  deeds  so  that  he  may  eradicate  the  vices 
that  may  have  taken  root  in  him.  Let  him  not  suppose  that 
his  characteristics  have  reached  such  a  state  that  they  are  no 
longer  subject  to  change,  for  any  one  of  them  may  be  altered 
from  the  good  to  the  bad,  and  vice  versa;  and,  moreover,  all  in 
accordance  with  his  own  free  will.  To  confirm  this  theory,  we 
have  mentioned  all  these  facts  concerning  the  observances  and 
the  transgressions  of  the  Law. 

It  now  remains  for  us  to  explain  another  phase  of  this  problem, 
which  arises  from  the  fact  that  there  are  several  Scriptural 
passages  in  which  some  think  they  find  proof  that  God  pre- 
ordains and  forces  man  to  disobedience.  This  being  an  erroneous 
opinion,  it  becomes  our  duty  to  explain  these  passages,  since 
so  many  people  are  confused  regarding  them.  One  of  these  is 
that  in  which  God  said  to  Abraham,  "and  they  (the  Egyptians) 


Gen.  HI,  22.  '  Of.  H.  Teshubah,  V,  1. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  93 

will  make  them  (the  Israelites)  serve,  and  they  will  afflict  them".1 
"Is  it  not  evident",  it  is  claimed,  "that  God  decreed  that  the 
Egyptians  should  oppress  the  seed  of  Abraham?  Then,  why 
did  He  punish  them,  since,  owing  to  divine  predestination,  it 
was  inexorably  decreed  that  they  should  enslave  the  Israelites?" 
The  answer  to  this  is  as  follows.  Suppose  God  had  said  that 
of  those  who  were  to  be  born  in  the  future,  some  were  to  be 
transgressors  and  others  observers  of  the  Law,  some  pious  and 
some  wicked.  Such  would  take  place,  but  it  would  by  no  means 
follow  from  this  divine  decree  that  a  certain  individual  would 
necessarily  have  to  do  evil,  or  that  another  pious  individual 
would  be  forced  to  do  good.  On  the  contrary,  every  evil-doer 
would  become  such  of  his  own  free  will;  if  he  preferred  to  be 
a  righteous  man,  it  would  be  in  his  power,  and  nothing  could 
prevent  him  from  becoming  such.  Likewise,  if  every  righteous 
man  preferred  to  do  evil,  nothing  would  hinder  him,  for  God's 
decree  was  not  pronounced  against  any  certain  individual,  so 
that  he  might  say,  "It  has  already  been  decreed  that  I  do  this 
or  that",  but  [these  words]  applied  to  the  race  in  general,  at  the 
same  time  allowing  every  individual  to  retain  his  own  free  will, 
according  to  the  very  makeup  of  his  nature.  Consequently,  every 
Egyptian  who  maltreated  or  oppressed  the  Israelites  had  it  in 
his  own  power  not  to  do  them  any  injury  unless  he  wanted  to, 
for  it  was  not  ordained  that  any  certain  individual  should  harm 
them.2 

The  same  answer  may  also  apply  to  another  passage  in 
which  God  says,  "Behold,  thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers;  and 
then  will  this  people  rise  up  and  go  astray  after  the  gods  of 
the  stranger  of  the  land".3  This  is  no  more  nor  less  than  if 
God  had  said,  "Whoever  practises  idolatry  will  meet  with 
this  or  that  treatment",  but,  if  no  transgressor  should  ever  be 
found,  then  the  threat  of  punishment  for  idolatry  would  become 
nullified,  and  the  curses  would  all  be  ineffectual.4  The  same  is 
true  of  all  punishments  mentioned  in  the  Law.  As  we  cannot 
say  that  simply  because  we  find  the  law  of  stoning  for  Sabbath- 

t  Gen.  XV,  13.  *  Cf.  H.  Teshubah,  VI,  5.  s  Deut. 

XXXI,  16.  *  Cf.  H.  T'shubah,  loc.  cit. 


94  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

breakers  [in  the  Torah]  that  he  who  desecrates  the  Sabbath  was 
compelled  to  violate  it,  no  more  can  we  maintain  that  because 
certain  maledictions  occur  there  that  those  who  practised  idolatry, 
and  upon  whom  these  curses  consequently  fell,  were  predestined 
to  be  idol-worshippers.  On  the  contrary,  every  one  who  prac- 
tised idolatry  did  so  of  his  own  volition,  and  so  received  due 
punishment,  in  consonance  with  the  passage,  "Yea  they  have 
made  a  choice  of  their  own  ways  ...  so  will  I  also  make  choice 
of  their  misfortune".1 

As  regards,  however,  the  words  of  God,  "and  I  will  harden 
the  heart  of  Pharaoh",2  afterwards  punishing  him  with  death, 
there  is  much  to  be  said,  and  from  which  there  may  be  deduced 
an  important  principle.  Weigh  well  what  I  say  in  this  matter, 
reflect  upon  it,  compare  it  with  the  words  of  others,3  and  give 
preference  to  that  which  is  best.  If  Pharaoh  and  his  coun- 
sellors had  committed  no  other  sin  than  that  of  not  permitting 
Israel  to  depart,  I  admit  that  the  matter  would  be  open 
to  great  doubt,  for  God  had  prevented  them  from  releasing 
Israel  according  to  the  words,  "For  I  have  hardened  his  heart 
and  the  hearts  of  his  servants".4  After  that,  to  demand  of 
Pharaoh  that  he  send  them  forth  while  he  was  forced  to  do 
the  contrary,  and  then  to  punish  him  because  he  did  not  dis- 
miss them,  finally  putting  him  and  all  his  followers  to  death, 
would  undoubtedly  be  unjust,  and  would  completely  contradict 
all  that  we  have  previously  said.  Such,  however,  was  not  the 
real  state  of  affairs,  for  Pharaoh  and  his  followers,  already  of 
their  own  free  will,  without  any  constraint  whatever,  had  rebelled 
by  oppressing  the  strangers  who  were  in  their  midst,  having 
tyrannized  over  them  with  great  injustice,  as  Scripture  plainly 
states,  "And  he  said  unto  his  people,  Behold,  the  people  of  the 
children  of  Israel  is  more  numerous  and  mightier  than  we,  come 
let  us  deal  wisely  with  it".5  This  they  did  through  the  dictates 
of  their  own  free  will  and  the  evil  passions  of  their  hearts,  with- 
out any  external  constraint  forcing  them  thereto.  The  punish- 


»  Isa.  LXVI,  3.  4.  2  Ex.  XIV,  4.  3  M.  probably 

means  Abraham  ibn  Ezra  and  Ibn  Baud.    See  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  24. 
<  Ex.,  X,  1.  s  Ibid.,  I,  9,  10. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  95 

ment  which  God  then  inflicted  upon  them  was  that  He  withheld 
from  them  the  power  of  repentance,  so  that  there  should  fall  upon 
them  that  punishment  which  justice  declared  should  he  meted 
out  to  them.  The  fact  that  they  were  prevented  from  repenting 
manifested  itself  by  Pharaoh's  not  dismissing  them.  This  God 
had  explained  and  told  him,  namely,  that  if  He  had  merely 
wished  to  liberate  Israel,  He  would  have  destroyed  him  and 
his  adherents,  and  He  would  have  brought  out  the  Israelites; 
but,  in  addition  to  the  liberation  of  his  people,  God  wished  to 
punish  him  because  of  his  previous  oppression  of  Israel,  as  it 
is  said  at  the  beginning  of  the  matter,  "And  also  that  nation 
whom  they  shall  serve  will  I  likewise  judge".1  It  would  have 
been  impossible  to  have  punished  them,  if  they  had  repented; 
therefore  repentance  was  withheld  from  them,  and  they  continued 
to  keep  the  children  of  Israel  in  bondage,  as  it  says,  "For  even 
now  I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  etc.  .  . .  but  for  this  cause 
have  I  allowed  thee  to  remain".2 

No  one  can  find  fault  with  us  when  we  say  that  God  at 
times  punishes  man  by  withholding  repentance  from  him,  thus 
not  allowing  him  free  will  as  regards  repentance,  for  God  (blessed 
be  He)  knows  the  sinners,  and  His  wisdom  and  equity  mete  out 
their  punishment.  Sometimes,  He  punishes  only  in  this  world, 
sometimes  only  in  the  world  to  come,  sometimes  in  both.  Further- 
more, His  punishment  in  this  world  is  varied,  sometimes  being 
bodily,  sometimes  pecuniary,  and  sometimes  both  at  once.  Just 
as  some  of  man's  undertakings,  which  ordinarily  are  subject  to 
his  own  free  will,  are  frustrated  by  way  of  punishment,  as  for 
instance  a  man's  hand  being  prevented  from  working  so  that 
he  can  do  nothing  with  it,  as  was  the  case  of  Jereboam,  the 
son  of  Nebat3,  or  a  man's  eyes  from  seeing,  as  happened  to 
the  Sodomites  who  had  assembled  about  Lot 4,  likewise  does 
God  withhold  man's  ability  to  use  his  free  will  in  regard  to 


1  Gen.  XV,  14. 

2  Ex.  IX,  15.  16.    The  same  explanation  for  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh's 
heart  is  given  in  H.  Teshubah,  VI,  3.     On  the  withholding  of  repentance, 
see  Schechter,  Some  Aspects  of  BabUnic  Theology,  p.  332. 

3  See  I  K.  XIII,  4.  *  See  Gen.  XIX,  11. 


96  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

repentance,  so  that  it  never  at  all  occurs  to  liim  to  repent,  and 
he  thus  finally  perishes  in  his  wickedness.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  know  about  God's  wisdom  so  as  to  be  able  to  ascertain 
why  He  inflicts  precisely  such  punishment  as  He  does  and  no 
other,  just  as  little  as  we  know  why  one  species  has  a  certain 
particular  form  and  not  another.  It  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know 
the  general  principle,  that  God  is  righteous  in  all  His  ways, 
that  He  punishes  the  sinner  according  to  his  sin,  and  rewards 
the  pious  according  to  his  righteousness. 

If  you  should  inquire  why  God  repeatedly  asked  Pharaoh 
to  release  Israel  which  he  was  unable  to  do — while  he,  in 
spite  of  the  plagues  which  befell  him,  persisted  in  his  rebellion 
and  stubbornness,  which  very  rebelliousness  and  stubbornness 
was  his  punishment — and  yet  God  would  not  in  vain  have 
asked  him  to  do  a  thing  which  he  could  not  do,  then  know  that , 
this,  too,  was  a  part  of  God's  wisdom,  to  teach  Pharaoh  that 
God  can  suspend  man's  freedom  of  will  when  it  pleases  Him 
to  do  so.  So,  God  said  to  him  (through  Moses),  "I  desire  that 
thou  shouldst  liberate  them,  but  thou  wilt  not  dismiss  them,  so 
that  thou  shouldst  die".  Pharaoh  should  have  consented  to 
release  them,  and  therely  disprove  the  words  of  the  prophet 
(Moses)  that  he  was  unable  to  obey,  but  he  had  not  the  power. 
Thus,  a  great  wonder  was  revealed  to  the  people,  as  it  is  said, 
"In  order  that  they  may  proclaim  my  name  throughout  the 
earth",1  namely,  that  it  is  possible  for  God  to  punish  man  by 
depriving  him  of  his  free  will  respecting  a  certain  deed,  while 
he,  though  realizing  it,  is,  however,  unable  to  influence  his  soul, 
and  return  to  his  former  state  of  freedom  of  the  will. 

Such  was,  likewise,  the  punishment  of  Sihon,  King  of  Heshbon; 
for,  on  account  of  his  former  misdeed,  to  which  he  was  not 
forced,  God  punished  him  by  preventing  him  from  granting  the 
request  of  the  Israelites,  as  a  result  of  which  they  put  him  do 
death,  as  Scripture  says,  "But  Sihon,  the  king  of  Heshbon, 
would  not  suffer  our  passing  by  him",2  etc.  What  has  made 
this  passage  difficult  for  all  commentators  is  their  impression 
that  Sihon  was  punished  for  not  permitting  Israel  to  pass 

*  Ex.  IX,  16.  2  Deut.  II,  30.     Of.  H.  Teshubah,  VI,  3. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  97 

through  his  land,  just  as  they  imagined  that  Pharaoh  and 
his  adherents  were  punished  for  not  releasing  Israel,  and  so 
they  ask,  "How  could  he  (Sihon)  be  justly  punished,  since  he 
was  not  a  free  agent?"  These  suppositions  are  incorrect,  and 
the  matter  is  as  we  have  explained,  namely,  that  Pharaoh  and 
his  adherents  were  punished  by  G-od  because  of  their  previous 
oppression  of  Israel,  of  which  they  did  not  repent,  so  that  there 
befell  them  all  the  plagues;  while  Sihon's  punishment,  which 
consisted  of  his  inability  to  do  the  will  of  Israel,  thus  resulting 
in  his  death,  was  due  to  the  former  deeds  of  oppression  and 
injustice  which  he  had  practised  in  his  kingdom.1 

God  has,  moreover,  expressly  stated  through  Isaiah  that  He 
punishes  some  transgressors  by  making  it  impossible  for  them 
to  repent,  which  He  does  by  the  suspension  of  their  free  will. 
Thus,  He  says,  "Obdurate  will  remain  the  heart  of  this  people 
and  their  ears  will  be  heavy  and  their  eyes  will  be  shut,  lest 
.  .  .  they  be  converted  and  healing  be  granted  them".2  The 
meaning  of  these  words  is  so  plain  and  obvious  that  they  need 
no  explanation.  They  are,  however,  a  key  to  many  unopened 
locks.  Upon  this  principle  also  are  based  the  words  of  Elijah 
(peace  be  unto  him!)  who,  when  speaking  of  the  unbelievers  of 
his  time,  said  of  them,  "Thou  hast  turned  their  hearts  back",3 
which  means  that,  as  they  have  sinned  of  their  own  accord, 
their  punishment  from  Thee  is  that  Thou  hast  turned  their 
hearts  away  from  repentance,  by  not  permitting  them  to  exer- 
cise free  will,  and  thus  have  a  desire  to  forsake  that  sin,  in 
consequence  of  which  they  persevere  in  their  unbelief.  So  it  is 
said,  "Ephraim  is  bound  to  idols;  let  him  alone",4  which  means 
that  since  Ephraim  has  attached  himself  to  idols  of  his  own 
free  will,  and  has  become  enamoured  of  them,  his  punishment 
consists  in  his  being  abandoned  to  his  indulgence  in  them. 
This  is  the  interpretation  of  the  words  "Let  him  alone".  To 

1  M.  cannot,  however,  point  to  any  biblical  passage  that  substantiates 
his  contention  that  Sihon  had  previously  committed  injustice. 

2  Isa.  VI,  10,  quoted  also  in  H.  Teshubah,  VI,  3. 

3  I  K.  XVIII,  37,   quoted  again  in  H.  Teshubah,  loc.  cit.,    which  also 
refers  to  Josh.  XI,  20. 

*  Hos.  IV,  17. 


98  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

one  who  understands  subtle  ideas,  this  explanation  will  appeal 
as  being  excellent. 

Very  different,  however,  is  the  meaning  of  what  Isaiah  said, 

"Why   hast   thou   let   us  go  astray,   oh  Lord,   from  Thy  ways, 

and  suffered  our  hearts  to  be  hardened  against  Thy  fear?"  *  These 

words   have   no   bearing  upon  the  foregoing  exposition.     Their 

meaning  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  context  in  which  they  occur. 

The    prophet,    bewailing    the    captivity,    our   residence   among 

strangers,  the  cessation  of  our  kingdom,  and  the  sovereignty  of 

the  nations  over  us,   says  by  way  of  prayer,    "0  God,  if  Israel 

continues   to   see   this   state  of  affairs  in  which  the  unbelievers 

wield  the  power,   they   will   go   astray  from  the  path  of  truth, 

and   their  heart    will   incline   away  from  Thy  fear,  as  if  Thou 

wast  the  cause  of  making  those  ignorant  ones  originally  depart 

from  the  path  of  truth,   as  our  teacher  Moses  said,   'Then  will 

the   nations   which   have   heard  Thy   fame  say  in  this  manner 

that  because  the  Lord   was  not  able',"2  etc.    For  this  reason, 

Isaiah   said   after  that,   "Return   for  the  sake  of  Thy  servants 

the   tribes   of  Thy  heritage",3  so  that  there   should  not  be  a 

blasphemy  of  God's  name  (by  the  heathens).     Likewise,   in  the 

"minor    prophets",    there    is    found  the   opinion   of  those  who, 

following  the  truth,  were  nevertheless  conquered  by  the  nations 

at  the  time  of  the  exile,  which  passage,  quoting  their  own  words, 

reads,    "Every    one   that    doth    evil   is  good  in  the  eyes  of  the 

Lord,  and  in  them  he  findeth  delight,  or  else,  where  is  the  God 

of  justice?"4    The  prophet,  quoting  their  own  words  which  were 

occasioned  by  the  length  of  the  exile,  continues,  "Ye  have  said, 

It  is  vain  to  serve  God;  and  what  profit  is  it  that  we  have  kept 

His  charge,  and  that  we  have  walked  contritely  before  the  Lord 

of  Hosts?     And    now    we    call   the    presumptuous  happy;   yea, 

built  are  they  that  practise  wickedness"5,  etc.     Then,  however, 

explicitly  stating  that  God,  in  the  future,  will  reveal  the  truth, 

he  says,    "And  ye  shall  return,  and  see  the  difference  between 

the  righteous  and  the  wicked".6 


•  Isa.  LXIII,  17.  2  Num.  XIV,  15.  16.  3  Isa.,  loc.  cit. 

«  Mai.  II,  17.  s  ibid.,  Ill,  14.  15. 

tti,  III,  18.    Of.  Moreh,  III,  19. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  99 

These  are  the  ambiguous  passages  in  the  Law  and  Scripture 
from  which  it  might  appear  that  God  compels  man  to  commit 
transgressions.  We  have,  however,  undoubtedly  explained  the 
meaning  of  these  verses,  and  if  one  examines  it  very  closely,  he 
will  find  it  a  truthful  explanation.  We,  therefore,  hold  to  our 
original  contention,  namely,  that  obedience  or  transgression  of 
the  Law  depends  entirely  upon  man's  free  will;  that  he  is  the 
master  of  his  own  actions;  that  what  he  chooses  not  to  do  he 
leaves  undone,  although  God  may  punish  him  for  a  sin  which 
he  has  committed  by  depriving  him  of  his  free  will,  as  we  have 
made  clear;  furthermore,  that  the  acquisition  of  virtues  and 
vices  is  entirely  in  the  power  of  man,  in  consequence  of  which 
it  is  his  duty  to  strive  to  acquire  virtues,  which  he  alone  can 
acquire  for  himself,  as  the  Rabbis  in  their  ethical  sayings  in 
this  very  tractate  say,  "If  I  am  not  for  myself  who  will  be 
for  me?"» 

There  is,  however,  one  thing  more  relating  to  this  problem 
about  which  we  must  say  a  few  words,  in  order  to  treat  in 
a  comprehensive  manner  the  subject-matter  of  this  chapter. 
Although  I  had  not  intended  at  all  to  speak  of  it,  necessity 
forces  me  to  do  so.2  This  topic  is  the  prescience  of  God,3 
because  it  is  with  an  argument  based  on  this  that  our  views 
are  opposed  by  those  who  believe  that  man  is  predestined  by 
God  to  do  good  or  evil,  and  that  man  has  no  choice  as  to 
his  conduct,  since  his  volition  is  dependent  upon  God.  The 
reason  for  their  belief  they  base  on  the  following  statement. 
"Does  God  know  or  does  He  not  know  that  a  certain  individual 
will  be  good  or  bad?  If  thou  sayest  'He  knows',  then  it  ne- 
cessarily follows  that  man  is  compelled  to  act  as  God  knew 
beforehand  he  would  act,  otherwise  God's  knowledge  would  be 


1  Abot,  I,  14.    Cf.  M.'s  commentary  on  this  passage. 

2  M.  feels  it  necessary  here  to  discuss  philosophically  the  prescience 
of  God,  which  he  does  reluctantly,  as  the  Perakim  are  intended  for  readers 
not  versed  in  philosophy.    See  Introduction,  p.  11. 

3  For  M.'s  discussion  of  God's  knowledge,  see  Perek  Helelc;  H.  Teshubah, 
V,  5;  Yesode  ha-Torah,  II,  8-10;  Moreh,  I,  58,  and  III,  19'-21.    See  Munk 

Guide,  I,  p.  301,  n.  4. 

a* 


100  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

imperfect.  If  thou  sayest  that  God  does  not  know  in  advance, 
then  great  absurdities  and  destructive  religious  theories  will 
result."  Listen,  therefore,  to  what  I  shall  tell  thee,  reflect  well 
upon  it,  for  it  is  unquestionably  the  truth.1 

It  is,  indeed,  an  axiom  of  the  science  of  the  divine,  i.  e- 
metaphysics,  that  God  (may  He  be  blessed!)  does  not  know  by 
means  of  knowledge,  and  does  not  live  by  means  of  life,2  so 
that  He  and  His  knowledge  may  be  considered  two  different 
things  in  the  sense  that  this  is  true  of  man;  for  man  is  distinct 
from  knowledge,  and  knowledge  from  man,  in  consequence  of 
which  they  are  two  different  things.  If  God  knew  by  means 
of  knowledge,  He  would  necessarily  be  a  plurality,  and  the 
primal  essence  would  be  composite,  that  is,  consisting  of  God 
Himself,  the  knowledge  by  which  He  knows,  the  life  by  which 
He  lives,  the  power  by  which  He  has  strength,  and  similarly 
of  all  His  attributes.  I  shall  only  mention  one  argument,  simple 
and  easily  understood  by  all,  though  there  are  strong  and  con- 
vincing arguments  and  proofs  that  solve  this  difficulty.  It  is 
manifest  that  God  is  identical  with  His  attributes  and  His 
attributes  with  Him,  so  that  it  may  be  said  that  He  is  the 
knowledge,  the  knower,  and  the  known,  and  that  He  is  the 
life,  the  living,  and  the  source  of  His  own  life,  the  same  being 
true  of  His  other  attributes.  This  conception  is  very  hard  to 
grasp,  and  thou  shouldst  not  hope  to  thoroughly  understand  it 
by  two  or  three  lines  in  this  treatise.  There  can  only  be  im- 
parted to  thee  a  vague  idea  of  it.3 

Now,  in  consequence  of  this  important  axiom,  the  Hebrew 
language  does  not  allow  the  expression  He  Adonai  (the  life  of 
God)  as  it  does  He  Fara'oh 4  (the  life  of  Pharaoh),  where  the 


1  For  a  list  and  the  opinions  of  Jewish  philosophers  before  M.  who 
discussed  this  problem,  see  Rosin,  Ethik,  p.  73,  n.  5. 

2  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  57:  SHD!  *b  JH1M  D"ro  xh  'n  pi,   and  Yesode  ha-Torah, 
II,  10.     See  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  p.  423,  and  note  94. 

3  For  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  theories  which  M.  merely  mentions 
here,  see  Moreh,  I,  50-51,   on  the  attributes  of  God.     See  Munk,  Guide, 
I,  50,  p.  179  ff.,  passim;  Kaufmann,  ibid.,  p.  418  ff.;  Cohen,  Charakteristik, 
etc.  in  Moses  ben  Maimon,  I,  pp.  89-90. 

«  Gen.  XLII,  15. 


THE  EIGHT  CHAPTERS— VIII  101 

word  he  (in  the  construct  state)  is  related  to  the  following 
noun,  for  the  thing  possessed  and  the  possessor  (in  this  case) 
are  two  different  things.  Such  a  construction  cannot  be  used 
in  regard  to  the  relation  of  a  thing  to  itself.  Since  the  life  of 
God  is  His  essence,  and  His  essence  is  His  life,  not  being  se- 
parate and  distinct  from  each  other,  the  word  "life",  therefore, 
cannot  be  put  in  the  construct  state,  but  the  expression  Hai 
AdonaiL  (the  living  God)  is  used,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to 
denote  that  God  and  His  life  are  one.2 

Another  accepted  axiom  of  metaphysics  is  that  human 
reason  cannot  fully  conceive  God  in  His  true  essence,  because 
of  the  perfection  of  God's  essence  and  the  imperfection  of  our 
own  reason,  and  because  His  essence  is  not  due  to  causes 
through  which  it  may  be  known.3  Furthermore,  the  inability 
of  our  reason  to  comprehend  Him  may  be  compared  to  the 
inability  of  our  eyes  to  gaze  at  the  sun,  not  because  of  the 
weakness  of  the  sun's  light,  but  because  that  light  is  more 
powerful  than  that  which  seeks  to  gaze  into  it.4  Much  that 
has  been  said  on  this  subject  is  self-evident  truth. 

From  what  we  have  said,  it  has  been  demonstrated  also  that 
we  cannot  comprehend  God's  knowledge,  that  our  minds  cannot 
grasp  it  all,  for  He  is  His  knowledge,  and  His  knowledge  is 
He.  This  is  an  especially  striking  idea,  but  those  (who  raise 
the  question  of  God's  knowledge  of  the  future)  fail  to  grasp 
it  to  their  dying  day.5  They  are,  it  is  true,  aware  that  the 

1  Ruth,  in,  13. 

2  Cf.    Yesode  ha-Torah,  II,  10,   and  Moreh,  I,  58   (beg.).     See  Munk, 
Guide,  I,   p.  302,   n.  3.     The  expressions   D'nto  '•n  (II  Sam.  II,  27),  h*  -n 
(Job  XXVII,  2),  and  especially  -j»SJ  <m  nw  <n  (I  Sam.  XX,  3;  XXV,  26, 
and  II  K.  II,  2),  and  Jer.  XXXVIII,  16  substantiate  this  novel  linguistic 
argument  of  M.     Amos  VIII,  14  p  "pnbx  'n  is  used  in  reference  to  the 
gods  of  idolators. 

3  See  Aristotle's  Metaphysics,  XXII,  9. 

4  Cf.  Moreh,  I,  59,   "All  philosophers  say,  'He  has  overpowered  us  by 
His  grace,  and  it  is  invisible  to  us  through  the  intensity  of  His  light', 
like  the  sun  which  cannot  be  perceived  by  the  eyes  which  are  too  weak 
to  bear  its  rays".    Cf.  Bahya,  Robot  ha-Lebobot,  I,  10.    See  Munk,  Guide 
I,  p.  252;  Rosin,  Ethik,  pp.75,  n.  4;  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  pp.  324-325; 
445,  n.128;  and  Wolff,  Acht  Capitel,  p.  80,  n.  1. 

*  See  Hebrew  text,  c.  VIII,  p.  55,  n.  37. 


102  THE  ETHICS  OF  MAIMONIDES 

divine  essence,  as  it  is,  is  incomprehensible,  yet  they  strive  to 
comprehend  God's  knowledge,  so  that  they  may  know  it,  but 
this  is,  of  course,  impossible.  If  the  human  reason  could  grasp 
His  knowledge,  it  would  be  able  also  to  define  His  essence, 
since  both  are  one  and  the  same,  as  the  perfect  knowledge  of 
God  is  the  comprehension  of  Him  as  He  is  in  His  essence, 
which  consists  of  His  knowledge,  His  will,  His  life,  and  all  His 
other  majestic  attributes.  Thus,  we  have  shown  how  utterly 
futile  is  the  pretension  to  define  His  knowledge.  All  that  we 
can  comprehend  is  that  just  as  we  know  that  God  exists  so 
are  we  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  He  knows.  If  we  are  asked, 
"What  is  the  nature  of  God's  knowledge?",  we  answer  that  we 
do  not  know  any  more  than  we  know  the  nature  of  His  true 
existence.1  Fault  is  found,  moreover,  with  him  who  tries  to 
grasp  the  truth  of  the  divine  existence,  as  expressed  by  the 
words,  "Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God?  Canst  thou 
find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection?"2 

Reflect,  then,  upon  all  that  we  have  said,  namely,  that  man 
has  control  over  his  actions,  that  it  is  by  his  own  determination 
that  he  does  either  the  right  or  the  wrong,  without,  in  either 
case,  being  controlled  by  fate,3  and  that,  as  a  result  of  this 
divine  commandment,  teaching,  preparation,  reward,  and  punish- 
ment are  proper.  Of  this  there  is  absolutely  no  doubt.  As 
regards,  however,  the  character  of  God's  knowledge,  how  He 
knows  everything,  this  is,  as  we  have  explained,  beyond  the 
reach  of  human  ken. 

This  is  all  that  we  purposed  saying  in  this  chapter,  and  it 
is  now  time  for  us  to  bring  our  words  to  an  end,  and  begin 
the  interpretation  of  this  treatise 4  to  which  these  eight  chapters 
are  an  introduction. 


1  Cf.  Moreh,  III,  20-21.  2  Job  XI,  7. 

s  In  his  Commentary  on  Abot,  III,  15,  M.  maintains  that  the  phrase 
"Everything  is  foreseen  (by  God),  but  freedom  of  choice  is  given",  is  in 
harmony  with  his  theory  of  the  omniscience  of  God,  which  does  not, 
however,  deprive  man  of  free  will.  See  Rawicz,  Commentary  p.  75. 

4  I.  e.,  Abot 


INDEX 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURAL  PASSAGES 


Genesis  III.  22  . 
XV.  13  . 
XV.  14  .  , 

XIX.  11 
XLII.  15    . 
XLV.  27 

Exodus  I.  9.  10  .   , 
IX.  15.  16 

IX.  16    . 

X.  1    .   . 
XIV.  4  . 

XX.  12  . 


Page 

....  92 

....  93 

....  95 

....  95 

....  100 

....  82 

....  94 

....  95 

....  96 

....  94 

....  94 

....  65 

XXII.  26 88 

XXIII.  5 65 

XXXIH.  18 82 

XXXIII.  20 82 

XXXIII.  23 83 

Leviticus  XVIII.  3 72 

XIX.  17 66 

XIX.  18      65 

XIX.  32     65 

Numbers  VI.  11 63 

XIV.  15.  16 98 

XX.  8 68 

XX.  10 67 

XX.  12 67 

XX.  24 67 

Deuteronomy  II.  30 96 

V.  1 88 

VI.  5 73 

XI.  19 88 

XVII.  11    ....  65 

XVIII.  22             .  66 


Deuteronomy  XX.  5  .... 
XX.  7  .... 
XXII.  1  ... 
XXII.  4  ... 
XXII.  8  ... 
XXIV.  6  .  . 

XXIX.  18  .   . 

XXX.  15.  19  . 

XXXI.  16  . 


Page 
.  88 

.  88 
.  65 
.  65 
.  88 
.  88 
.  52 
.  87 
.  93 


II  Samuel  XXIII.  3 81 

I  Kings  III.  5 81 

XIII.  4 95 

XVIII.  37 97 

II  Kings  III.  15 82 

Isaiah  VI.  10 97 

LIX.  2 80 

LXIII.  17 98 

LVI.  3.  4 94 

Jeremiah  IX.  1 62 

Hosea  IV.  17 97 

Zechariah  VII.  3 64 

VII.  6 64 

VII.  9 64 

VIII.  9 64 

Malachi  II.  17 98 

III.  14.  15 98 

III.  18 98 

Psalms  XIX.  9 63 

XLIX.  13 70 

L.  23 68 

Proverbs  III.  6 73 

XII.  15 63 

XIV.  12 53 


104 


INDEX 


Proverbs  XIX.  2 44 

XXL  10 75 

XXI.  15 76 

Job  IV.  18 67 

XI.  7 102 

XXV.  4 67 

Ruth  III.  13 101 

Lamentations  III.  38 89 

III.  39  .    89 


Page 

Lamentations  III.  40.  41  ....  90 

Ecclesiastes  I.  9      90 

VII.  20 67 

Nehemiah  XIII.  26 81 

I  Chronicles  XXII.  8 81 

TARGUM  ONKELOS 

Genesis  III.  22 92 

XLV.  27  .  .82 


INDEX  OP  QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  TALMUD 


MISHNAH 


Abot,  I.  14 
II.  5 
II.  12 
IV.  1 


Page 

.  .  99 
.  .  57 
.  .  73 
50,  80 


V.  20 57 

V.  23 76 

BABYLONIAN  TALMUD 

Berakot,  33b 88 

63a 73 

Shabbat,  25b 72 

30b 82 

92a 80 

Pesahim,  66b 82 

117a 82 

Moed  Eatan,  5a     68 

Yoma,  67b 77,  78 

Sukkah,  28a 84 

52a 76 

Telanit,  Ha 63 

Megillah,  25a 88 


Page 

Yebamot,  49b 79 

Nedarim,  lOa 63 

38a 80 

Nazir,  19a,  22a 63 

Sotah,  5b 68 

Baba  Kamma,  30a 34 

91b 63 

Baba  Mezi'a,  35  a 62 

Baba  Batra,  134  a 84 

Sanhedrin,  113  a 81 

Abodah  Zarah,  20b 34 

54b 91 

Niddah,  16b 88 

PALESTINIAN  TALMUD 

Nedarim,  IX,  1 66 


MIDRASHIM 
Mekilta'to  Ex.  XV.  2  .  . 
Sifra  to  Lev.  XX,  26  .  . 
Yalkut  to  Wayikra  226  . 


68 
76 
76 


55  n  pie  D'piB  naie» 


,TPBH  w  no  nn  ^rnjrw  TV  wijrr  :wr&  napai  , 

n«  nan  ^aw  nn«  »inw»D  ^ao  n\n  ijno 
pjnm  nfcavn  njrrn  p  iniN^oa  KVW  IOD  JBW  Kin 
JUBTQ  natwiBW  irwa  naa  *mm  ^naan  n«na  m  4r6m 
5  Hint?  jnit?  loa  jnv  Hint?  jna  WMJW  «te  «7niw  nibo 


nno«  " 

,i3«son  nt?  n^an  ny  n«  «son  n6«  npnn 
wnenai  v!?«  mnioo  Dn«n  n^iyB»  "imineiw  no  b  14)o  pni 
10  fo*yapn  siiyo  17nn«  by  l^b  asm  nman  ^n^ao  yen 
bapniw^m  ,btosrv\  ,i»nianni  ^^lo^m  ^ivsn-'wn  rrn 
nnsp  wnjn  nnann  ^D^»  wuiwn  'ns  invsns  n«m  Dio«  ,pBD  nr 


21piDB«i  nj;  njrin  "DDI  ,pnsn  ma  wn«  nw   iiira»  no     a  mi 
is  i^«  i^«  n^  lionpn  i»«  22KroDDn  n«t  ^insn  ^nn«i  ,mn  nnann 


raised  the  question  of  God's  knowledge  of  future  things,  and  they  die  in 
ignorance  of  it.  Mss.  and  edd.  are  corrupt,  showing  that  IfiDI  was  mis- 
understood, and  that  attempts  were  made  to  read  sense  into  the  passage. 

20  Br  n&m  nno  -ram  WK  Kim  So  inno«  nno  isa-  i»«  Him  Ma  nsaa  n»«  Kim 
•jinoi  one  edd.  ino«i  innn«  ono  1x22  nw«  Nim.  Undoubtedly  now,  wnfi«,  and 
11TI131  go  back  to  an  original  inei  =  Ar  «13^n&.  By  leaving  off"  the  •[  of  Ma 
•]int31,  the  proper  reading  is  obtained. 

»  Ma  wpa  TKI.  2  mj>Titf  n»  =  Ar.  nr6ip»  nnn  rp11  ""nn.    Br  urw 

25  nni«  So  impT».  3  TTIWSO  . . .  I^NP  —  Ar.  miia  toeriN  ne^a  «3tDn«  i^>  nn. 
Ma  rh^f\  So  ^an  for  ^an.  *  Br  So  psnm  o«nm.  Ma  onbiti.  •  Br 
nan.  e  Br  So  +  1^>  ^«.  '  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  «al?«D.  Br  So  Q«1 

!?«w  ii^Br.  s  Br  >  Kin.          9  Br  So  +  i^.          »o  ie  'jy  p^nin  iaai 

thus  Ma  =  Ar.  p  "by  133K  ipl  "and  He  finds  fault  with  him  who".    pTnn 

30  b»  "disprove  of,  find  fault  with".  See  c.  IV,  p.  28.  n.  17;  c.  VIII,  p.  49, 
n.  29.  Br  So  hvmm  131  pDBi  1331.  "  Br  So  hy  nn1?.  «  Br  Ma 

So  >  'TV.  »  Ma  K3D.  '*  Ar.  |0  bsnnB;  Br  ^3»m  Ma  pm 

So  )2m.  is  Br  So  liiewty.  >«  Br  rV«  So  vhy  Tian\  "  Ma 

So  nnK.       »8  Ma  'iism  ii&Vn.       »»  Br  Ma  naanm.       20  unwiV  msp  =  Ar. 

35  Hi»  ISpn;  Ma  >  linsTT1?.  21  Thus  Br  =  Ar.  jNSpK  )K  ^  ^K  1p  Ma  1331 

piDBb  ran  So  pioaV  n»n  »^n  iaai.         22  Br  So  rwn  Nnsoon.         »  Wolff 
omits  ^>ISB!?«  nin  totnp  »nh  TI^«  KOSDU^K  nnn  m 
So  +  D^pnw  «i3  h»h  nSnn  D^ia  niiown  ion. 


n  pis  D-pB  MUMP 

nipm  Dfr  PBD  nr  mw  nwnm 


54 


,)i»nn  nmK 


nan 


K!?  ^    Kin 


nn 


p 
by 


«  p 
36Kin 
b  w 


pm  nw  ni«n  m 
nni  , 
«^  m 

nn  ,Kin  wijn 
IJ;T  onty 


Kim  ,6'nn  Kim  ,B«nn  Kini  /yrrn  Kim  ,jnrn  Kim  , 
mpn  *6  owp  B^ayn  ^KI  ,nn«nn  IKB>  pi  ,n"n 
yra  nty  WDKI  ,naiB  s^fa?  IK  nnw  TOB  na^»  man  5 


••n 


10 


15 


nra 


Dno  20 


Br  So  niajnon 
;  Ma 


nnw 


?6pi. 
3  So  n«n. 


Br 

5  Br  snvn  «im  j>wn  «ini.       «  Ma  So 
7  Br  So  "piPDDn  «im  Ma  T»&<  i»«i.  8  Br  a^»fi. 

»o  Ma  wnn  So  nrnn.  "  Br  D"nn»n  So  nay.    Ma  > 

n»n  So  ni«as  rn.  '3  Br  >  no«»  So  ie«»  itsa.  " 

^B^BJ  •'n.  «»  Ma  >  *ptM»tsrn.  »«  Ma  >  nnai. 

is  Br  So  «W  *k  is  Br  So  MW.  "  Br  So  +  mm. 


2  Ar.  mi  frip  sm 
*  Ma  >  ij>  Br 
^nn  «mi  '•nn  Mini. 
«  Ma  >  one. 

12  Ma  25 
Br  So  n 
17  Ma 

21  Br  > 


•nn«.  22  Br  So  iniT3»n.  23  Br  So  -f-  m«as.    So  +  nw»  n»«  'n  ^n 

r«tn  »san  n«  «^.        2*  Ma  >  ma  ruvon.          25  So  >  nan.  25  Ma  So  30 

wwna.        27  Br  nws^»  "ists.        as  Br  nmm  Ma  -portv        29  Ar. 
so  Br  So  n2»ip»  Ma  nsipa1.         si  Ma  nsipa.         si  Br  Ma  So  >  ^>a«  .  . 
=  Ar.  ba  DDB'bN  nw  tffah  ^n  0^.]«B.    Found  in  edd.  Basel  1804,  Dessau 
1809,  Groningen  1845,  Slutcki  1863,    Lemberg  1876,  etc.  33  ...  ftnk 

ni«n  thus  Ma  =  Ar;  Br  So  niNin  niNe  pin  »e»n  IIK  (So  nrrfc  nb)  nvn  <aBts,  35 
3<  So  «b»i  inrn  p  Di.  35  irwn  w^a"  wbi  =  Ar.  na  e^na  «bi  "and  we 

cannot  comprehend  Him".  36  So  >  ton.  37  in&l  ,  .  .  «im  =  Ar.  mi 

Ktt^HB  dnn«B  »-6K.  Wolff's  rendering  and  explanation  (see  Acht  Capitel,  p.  80, 
and  n.  2)  seem  to  be  correct    This  wonderful  idea  has  escaped  those  who 


53  n  pB  D'ptB 


"ps  nt  ^BOI   ,2iTa  'mwnsm  nityon 

YJflD    ^    fKtt»   mtyon 

PK  DK  KroDon  5n«t  no-ion 
K*?K  pyn  mo  "iww  K*?I 
B  sK-an  from  te«  %a  n  ia-6  vijna  mn  K^P  B'^KI  ,7pisn 


"DIKH  ni^ys  tean  ,msayn  ^  n»en 
Ksan  nty«i  ,D\n^«n  HTHM  «n^na  inTna»  in«  nnn 
IK  p^s  mm  DK  13DtJ7i  n  yns  B^KH  nt  ,iow  KIW 
10  pyn  ^y  niaio  mm»  mo  a«nrp  yT  noxn  DKI  ,jrr 

Tta  iny^T  mnn  IK  r"D 

niowy  mpmn  mo   "ia«nm  «mp»  jm  K»  no«n  OKI 
,IKO  n  tenom  2°imK  IOIKS?  no 


15  ii"K  D»W  ,ynon  nn«ty  no    i  ,mnKn  noann  iKann  naa»  nn 
nnm  >i^  jnom  Kin  mm»  ny  Q^nn  sn  22 
si»  nn  p  DK  niKn  sn^»n  jnem  yion  s 

26vm  '•mn  25i«nno  mn  jnos  24ynv  n»n  mn 
/n  Kin  29^  ^«  a«nm  ,J;T  n  28"«yK  ynom  n»n 

20  r6pi  nnnp  mya  n^nn  ^  sniD»  D^OKI  ,viKin  to  pi  ,to  29Kin  ni 


»  Ar.  ^«&^«  3«Dn3K  |«1.    Poc.  -4-  et  vitiorum  =  nnvnsni.    AT.  originally 
must  have  read  bwn^81  ^K3B^M.    Br  wVwBH  for  Tfbmm.  2  Ma  >  ITS. 

3  Ma  >  DiTto.  <  Br  ne«  p^l.  s  Br  Ma  >  '10103;  Br  Ma  n«D. 

6  Br  So  +  irw.  '  So  pisn  nt.  «  Ma  So  iitoan.  9  Him 

25  nnwn  (Br  +  ^?M)  o»n  njrr  =  Ar.  nHi"«3^K3  nbb8  D!?I>  ini  "and  it  is  God's 
knowledge  of  future  things",  see  Bloch,  Sefer  Hamiswoth,  p.  175;  I.  Fried- 
laender,  Sprachgeb.,  sub  £)£\  Wo.,  von  den  seienden  und  werdenden  Dingen. 
10  Ma  iTte.  So  >  na.  »i  Ma  >  DINH  , . .  nnaie.  12  Br  So  mbn. 

«  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.;  Br  Br>«n  m  ^H1»n  f?8»"»  »3Bfi  ten  flHtn  ni1»N^>  Dli  1»H1 

30  «nian  w  J?T  So  Kiian  rr  t^«n  m  ^>«i»n  ^HBW  «in  n3io«n  rn6  nnn  n»«i. 
"  Br  So  invn  ma.  «  Ma  So  >  njrr.  »e  So  onipo.  "  Br 

wwm  n\T  ne  nipn  J»T  «V»  So  n«s  la^iw.  is  Br  imnji.  19  Br  So 
3?e»  p^.  Ma  >  Hjea.  20  Br  So  ^.  21  Br  So  Hin  '3.  22  Ma 

ir«1.  23  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  JtonK  HJSHB  "and  therefore  they  are  two 

35  things":  Br  So  D"W  '3»  DH  Kin  p»  ]V31.  p  DM  almost  equal  to  p  *?J> 
(er^o).  2*  Br  o»n  jnv.  »»  So  +  me.  '«  Br  So  +  D'Hxaan. 

»  Ar.  l^tH^H  "the  eternal  things".  Br  >  D'SI.  28  Ma  >  1»H. 

2«  So  >  ton, 


n  pis  D'piB  naitttf  62 


pi  *i  rrvnan  or    rrin  *i  nawnn 
mn  D'IBK  B'asy  inn  ,3nmo  DIBS  ty  m  *iBB  iTBnm  ,Kinn 
an«i  irrmaa  n^syn  ^«  lannn  KIJW  V*i 
mpi  pa*#  n     B^aion  twiTBn  JB  nn  ,1^  run  py  Kini 

5 


11  IB«I  , 

,in«Ti»  03^  nta^i  no«n  7110  ijwv  "dnsDn  niiMne  piyn  m 
mwo  "ID8D3  no«n  7110  n«s^>  ^n^wn  0^30^  nao  nn«  n»\n  10 
«  rbw  sn^>3»  I^IBK*;  "jvo^  n«  ijnw  T»H  o^^n  ^3 


na«nin«  o^stwoan  IBRD  ityj;  nna  17i«3ty  1031  ,i6D»n  in  pyn 
3  i«niTim  "IBDD  ie«  ^ni^an  pn  isn^un  p  Dvnwan 
TBDI  ,BB»on  \n^«  (T«  1«  ,vsn  ^^n  Dn31  ^  'W  aw  15 

nuy  «w  nniD«  21ni^n  ane  p 

nwas 


BBTWP  one  24n«Tty  wipoai  mina  B^BIBBH  B^PIBBH  i«     20 
2«an  ny  WD«  ni«a  «im  ,pso  *6a  Bwy  liina  Him  ,nnsayn  ^ 

.niiiiannn 
iman 
oam 


Br  Ma  So  +  wnmK;  Ma  oiifi  for  frm.         2  Ma  -f-  nnb.         3  Ma  25 

*  So  +  r\"9  train  Br  Ma  +  n"».  »  Br  So  ^5.  «  Ma 

na  "S3.        '  Br  So  «inn  «sain».         «  Br  So  irn^i  ^».        9  posm 
=  Ar.  tuymDpm         10  Thus  Ma;  nVsn  TIT  =  Ar.  «»BiynD;  Br  So 
nt  "?».        »  Br  So  oneian  miain  !?«-icr«  IKT»S.         12  Ma  o^aon 
for  nbwn  D^aob.          »  Br  So  (So  +  .TJ>)  iaa-i  mm  ia«»  ntsa.          J*  Ma  30 

>  lot*1?.  is  Br  ivtfn.          »6  Br  So  ^viin  -p»  W'n.          "  Br  i»«ai 
1N3.           18  So  D'Wn  p.  »9  Br  +  DTitaV  20  Br  wv.  21  Br 
So  (So  mbi)  nAin  ana  p  iaa  onnano  ISDI  edd.  n^i  TIIKO  pmn  onnants  naioi. 
I.  T.  correctly  has  diTianfi,  although  Ar.  has  ttibip  p.    p  Di  =  Ar.  «^«;  Ma 

>  ni^:n  .  .  .  IBDO  -it5«.  22  Br  ap"ri»  at?  wn^isani  So  w  «m»  n»  wrpoanv  35 
23  So  +  ma.             2*  Br  ntoin.  2»  Br  rrD&.  2«  Br  So  aits. 

"  Ar.  n^wn^Ni  n»«»V«  nra  jtwiKto  i«.    Br  +  on  So  +  .Tn  after  mwn. 
2»  Ma  nnw6.  2»  Ma  >  ntw  «V  .  .  .  ntsi.  30  Br 

31  Br  wntra  i»«a. 


51 

vki  n?a 


n  pis  oyiB  naiB» 

nn«  n^ys  rrvna 


10 


mp 


]tn  p'sno 
/w 
n« 


nwan 
prra 
wwi 
prra 


no  hy 


IB  nt   jn 
waon  nrwi  ,nn 


103  ,«iTi^nan  orb 
j 
nnso 


no 


WBI 

«n  nt 

main  *     TPK  5noo 

no«  wm  ,7im:nnt?  ny 

onirna  ate  n^ison  ^y 


nw  noon  nte 
pi 


nawnn  ono 
naan  vit«i  ntn 


13  onion 


i»n"y  in^K  nan  a^a^in 


•  AT.  iVia  w  Q^yi  =  nn  «w  jn^i;  Br  Ma  So  mmri.          J  Br  nhv  for 

K"?1;  Br  >  -[VtKb  So  W»V.  3  Thus  edd.;  AT.  «MTrt  Br  Ma  So  TWvrfy. 

20  *  Br  no»a  nn  Tnn  ^jn.  8  Br  uoa.  «  So  v^j>  way.  '  Br 

inwim  wp  ionV:»  n»  iVian  Vww  io»nn  VMV  So  +  wwm  icnSa^  is 

s  Br  So  nt»n»  'JBD  obs  Q"»iBon  ^»  n»p  piDBn  nt  ]•«»  (So 

«b»  ""asa  «b«  pn*D  »a»a  «b  ^a.         »  So  inp.        "  iniain 

MSB.  and  edd.  are  confused  and  deficient,  but  the  text  can  be  reconstructed 

25  with   the   aid   of  the  Arabic  and  Ma.    Ar.  KB3  "info  W\  3pK»^  tj-3 

in 


rrv 


snn 


30  !?»  rrn 
ne  !?jr 


no 

mpn  KO  ^ 
wo\    Ma 
nn 


ona 


no 


(Br.  a»n 
lea  «b« 
35  U1H30.      Br  So  > 


.  Br  So  w» 

inn  n«  nwpn  (So  -f-  «m»)  nnaio  Mini 
«  itspi  npia  papa  «S» 
«  Br  na"pn.  u  Br 

train  So  waa.      »»  Br  »»rg.  onetsn.      »  Br  So  pataw.      »»  I.  T.  >  Ar. 
na.    Br  So  (So  era  nvnan)  ,T>"nan  DTa  atp11  K*?I.      «  Br  So  nt3«a. 

»  Ar.  (Poc.)  Wa  for  ^>a.       «s  Ma  >  mn.       »  Br  So  +  vtDID.       20  Br  So 
o»ap. 
d* 


nm 


]& 


rrvna 


p  , 


,pKn  ton 


n  pifi  oyiB  nyazv  50 

i  ,n^  «an 
ByBi  ,iua 

wvwiaa  ]rw  *an«n  rojron  rap 
y»  102  8<m  «  i 

ana 
a  n^« 
nta 


nawnn 


naon  no  yi 

a  ^ton  to«  ,nnn«  mis  i   nnvi 
:  waan  sea  a^won  ^iBiM  won  10 


29,-pn  p  u  nt  r 
,n^ea 
nn«  «^K 
n«n 
nw  n?a  mm  ,D>  mn 


3o'n^  15 
IBB  typaa 
7ns  mm  ,rnBnt?  ny 


i  Br  So  nrri»2  D'e»ai  mn  D^IJD  D^DBBI  nn^>  nan  trtwa  D^OPB.         2  ITWB^  20 
=  AT.  IK;  Ma  +  tMJP;  So  D"0»S.        3  Br  D'BJ>B1  So  D'e»B.  <  Br  nWKDI 

beas  So  1O3  for  1031.        5  Br  So  m«  ^a.        «  Thus  Ma  for  Ar.  hto¥  \»  brio 
=  boatO;  Br  blB^aa  So  bieaa.  '  Ar.  »eab«  ]»  "from  taking  hold, 

seizing".  8  Br  nttWB.  »  Br  033  p  DWrt  n»»  1»K3  So  p  D»3T^ 

B33  Ma  +  B33  p.  10  Ar.  iT3J>  1«  Br  U'J»  MDD11  1«  Ma  fjn  HIBD  1«  So  25 

VJJ>  KOD^  18.    According  to  Ar.  13'J?  is  to  be  construed  like  IT,  as  the  ob- 


ject of  baaa. 
Bi1?  nns  by. 
is  Br  f?«»a». 
20  Br 


"  Br  So 
Br  oo^n  UK 
»  Ma  So 

r  n. 


Br  ntten  1 
4-  TP  'no. 
28  Br  So 


n  Br  wvb  nvv  n»«a  So 
is  So  >  ny.          "  Br  >  ^3  n^». 

"  So  +  m.           «  Ma  >  »awn  ^fi. 
trn  no  j>nj  «b  nw«3  So 
23  \fyy  ,  .  .  «vni  for  Ar.  n 
Br  Ma  So  +  vh  after  neb 
26  Br  inwps?  by  TIBJW  rpn 

2»  Br  ,Tn  «in  p  03  m  "3.         30  Br  Ma  >  TV. 


Br  30 


2*  So  Wi»p»l.  So  >  by.        K  So 
2?  Br  nann  b&zb  So 


3i  So 

32  Ar.  rhvrat.    Br  b  =  Ar.  ib  "if".    Ma  ^Ki.         33  Ar.  =  r\nbv  35 
Br  So  Ma  onnte.    So  n\nn.  34  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  pf?un  «b  pb  Br  So 

nn*w  TipT1  p.          3*  Ma  715  m  n\m  So  7121  ton  rr-ni.        35  Br 
So  (B«»  trasn  nan.        37  Ma  nsn  Br  »3B3  ,T,T.       3»  So 
Ma  >  ba.  <o  Ma 


49  n  pfi  trpiB  rniet? 


rrn  2p  iron 

Kin  ino\-6i  ante  K^>  it?Ka  5itwy^>  n;a  iron 
,9uonpnt?  no   s^>   nniDi  psa  K^a  by    »rrn   m 
laom  ,"man  ^ao  anvnaa  no  iny^oi  njne  tow  ,*op  pyn 
5  ^niK-aa  nasty  102  "-raw  ^  nn^y  i^_yi  aama  12rn  IPK  anan 
/ui  i^  noanni  nan  uoo  rnsyi  an  ^tntr  sia  ny  mn 
nnvi  «^i  naa^»  ™yra\  anTnaa  ane  nn\i  * 

nawnn  p  ayio^»  nr  ^y  arA  a»n  wiy  iTm  ,»nman  nta 
nriy  pn  p  nn^>  'ifco   rrvw  no    i»»iiyn  p  nn^v 
10  iymm  nr  a»n  21<wa  naai  ,an^  «^»  «in  nauwin  p 
in^Di  im«  nawo  n\n  naV  BJCSVI^  22nsn  (TH 
anipn  DDOH  ^>v  2iit^i^  nni«  2*«^in  ny  run 
,27'^i  sai«  p  mar  TOK  ^un  n«  aai  ,26)^y 
,ana  ipnnni  nawnn  p  iy:oi  p  fyn  nawn  n^iy  rrn 
is     nai  Tmoyn  n«r  nnya  atom  ^s'^i  ST  n«  ^nn^sy  nny 
an«n  tyiys  a»rw  now  n 


ntn  abiya  ^iys  a^oys  fwiyn  mjw  rrrr  n»M  moan 


»  Ma  >  na»  zh  run.  2  Br  So  -p*«-  3  MSS.  edd.  one.   uoa 

20  "of  him"  =  AT.  ruts  which  context  requires.  «  Br  So  D^niaio  nm. 

s  Br  So  p  nn«  D»IJ>  7«i.  e  Br  So  >  WD  ^31  Nin  werfti.  '  Br 

So  ntra  rm.  »  Br  So  b.  »  Br  So  +  wwn.  »<>  Ar. 

irisn  V«n^>«  D^  ]«  -pi  \lb.  Mss.  edd.  >  Ar.  73  "it  remains"  ==  1«»3.  The 
V  of  fK»  points  to  some  word  that  has  fallen  out.  « »  Ar.  nai  N^  inp 

25  "without  force  or  constraint".  «  Ma  113.  «  Edd.  ^W  D 

l1Di  "and  they  placed  upon  them  a  heavy  yoke".  l*  Br  So  ltt«3  "WN3 

Ma  >  nwaa.  «  Br  +  n»nn,  «»  Br  So  yra  pi  man  ^a»  onTnaa. 
t7  Br  So  >  nrnan  no  nn^r  rwn  «^>.  See  n.  16.  p  man  ^a»  probably  a 
misplaced  equivalent  of  nrron  , , .  vk\  »»  Br  So  ^irr».  '»  Br  So 

30  D'Wiiyno.  20  I.  T.  >  Ar.  Dna«pJ>  "fii  ]H  "that  this  should  be  their 

punishment"  =  DB>1J>  nw.  "  So  lfi».  22  Br  ran  D'«».  23  Br 

So  +  mrrK  ]"«o  mno  after  D'taw.  Ma  ban  So  one«  for  D3»«i.  2*  Ma 
w^n»  So  iN'Sin.  25  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  napjr  }»•  Br  So  uvwb.  ™  Thus 
Ma  =  Ar.  nt5K^«  ^i«  ^s  bxp  NO3  mpnfi^K  nne^B;  "bj>  Br  So  DDHD  mp»  no  by 

55  naw  rrtsanty  nfia  (So  maw)  omap^.  27  So  +  bvu  iwana  i«ss  a-nw. 

2»  I.  T  +  nana  ^ep  n«i  -jniN  i«i.         2»  Of.  c.  IV,  p.  28,  n.  17,  and  below 
p.  55,  n.  10.  wbv  jnpib  \>*i  =  Ar.  ny«a»  «3C»!?'1  «bi.        a«  nawnn  p 
=  Ar.   a-UV   «^>   ]«a   "in   that  he   does   not  repent".     So  nawnns 
3'  Br  So  mna^  vo»r  »bt.         «  Br  So  i»»  w  «in  Ma  xnv.         "  So 
d 


n  pna  D"piB 


48 


a      jn  nvn?  jnn 
jn  ana  rrrw  s&  b 
pi  ,1^  jnia  j 
ma  3 


Dpi 
rw 
mnsnn 
li1?  )s 
rpn 


mina 


pi  ,-inT 


12 


i  n? 
pi  , 


inTnaa  2e^«  ,,Tp&6  nn 
i  (i5i  DTOYO  iina  nan  D 


nn  na«a  31 


ma 


rrn  pn*  nvn>  nsn  ;rn 
rrn  &  jn  niv6  ran 


35nt 


po  p 


mn  nj?n  10 

,p^  I3 

2<>vni   n 


nnn  ni^bpn  orvty  i^ni  is 
,rnav» 


i  Ma  "Din  n»n  Nbi  Br  So  ntsNtsn  nt  'ise  Kbi. 
So  A  y^D,  *  Br  So  DIDN.  s  Ma  >  -W. 
"itwn  for  -iKBtti.  Mi  +  »^1,  s  Ma  So  lp»2. 
D«.  n  Mi  D'sn  vn.  12  Br  vrtx  for 

«  Ma  SUM.         »  Edd.  +  p«n  nsi  "n^x  nn«. 

na  n^»sa  "towards  him  shall  we  do  and  act". 


2  So  +  p^nsi.         3  Ma 

e  So  >  vbs.  7  So 

9  Mi  DmTlM.         "  Br  25 

Br  Dwerr»  So  ooon^. 

15  So  '&  ^3.         i6  Ar. 

"  Ma 


!3  Ar.  *wv   "transgress".     Br   So  nni«  niap^»   Ma  »"»  n«r».     Originally 
"liartf,  but  incorrectly  copied  liayty,  a  natural  mistake,  as  niay^  is  used  30 
so  often  here.     It  then  became  necessary  to  supply  an  object.         19  So  + 
20  So  vm.        21  Ma  +  ona.       22  g0  ^n»  nw.         23  Ar.  na0. 


24  Ma 

+  '«a»  (oa  So 

-f-  o 

irY3. 

33  *f{yft 

3*  Ma  +  •''ttN. 

vvnam  for  ••maan 


ioa. 

si  Ma  Marion. 
-   -pB 


26  So  maj?^.    Br  ^«  for  ^a«.  27  Br 

28  Ma  DiT-ama  =  on^sna.    Br  Ma  So 

r  nipo  ]si»n  ini«a  »\  3o  I.  T.  +  35 

32  Ar.  nnpsi  "and  compare  it"  Br  in»l. 

au   those    who   have   spoken   about  it". 


as  Br  So  >  nt. 

"a. 


36  Br  So  "pn  nn». 


Br 


47 


n  pis  D'p-is 


jm 


pyn  nra  toy  ^nnu^  nn« 

"in«i  ,onB  ^  yaiB  jw  mm?  nno  np«  ntyyi  ,yvn  ai&n  yr 
:B^y^  vn  te«i  6n?»  np^i  IT  nte't?  I»B«  ,p 
5  awn  nitoyfi  inTnaa  rwyw  Vfn  m«n  nwnnoa  nr  7a^nnnty 


wyin 


p  pnin^i  ,«mtyBn 
nn 


10  pi  jnn 


n» 


mp  »^ 
nn  ,i^ 
is  na«  ntBi  ,22nna 


yn 


nan 

a 

nain 


ai»n   «  jnn 
ni2»n 

rum 
nna 


nn 


niana  nn 
pyn 
TDm 


27nra 


ana 


onB 


Dt?n  now 


20  »  Ma  +  mina  i«a  1221,  2  Ma  >  V'i. 
5  So  Kin  12  KXD3  i»«.  s  Ar.  rnSu^N  nnn 
absence  of  V**n  from  the  text  of  I.  T.,  and  arbore  in  brackets  in  Poc.,  seem  to 


3  So  iniM.          *  Ma  n. 
nitn  =  |»Kn  nta  npM.    The 


imply    that 

'  Ma  So  a«nn'». 

25  -On;  Br  «narg-  _|- 

Ma  —  Ar.  n«T 
12  So  +  n^a»n. 
is  Ma  ba». 
17  Ar. 


was   not    originally   in   the   Ar.     Ma  npVl  Ma  >  nm. 
8  Ma  r«T»3;  Br  +  |3  DM  after  HST.  «  Ma  > 

ni.  10  So  iTH^I  m!?&:M  1T^3»M  inTHH.  »i  Thus 

^NJ>BM  now  nw  ]M  So  mbwsa  Br  ansn  mbwea 

13  Ma  rvpjyns;  So  IWM  for  DM.  n  Br 

Ar.  -j^n1?  iMrota^M  mi  "and  he  is  the  chooser  in  this". 
win  imi.    Br  So  ""asm  for  mm  «  Ma  >  ^a. 

30  19  Br  So  >  nsp;  So  D<1p1DS)3.  20  Br  nnab.  21  Diwa1?  13M  D^"«1  = 

Ar.  Mna"aa^B  -'and  so  we  shall  explain  them".          22  Many  edd.  >  Dna  ...  "O. 
2s  Br  So  n&MJW  nts  for  ii»M.  24  i.  T.  +  na»  niND  »2iN.  25  Ar. 

nMin  "thou  seest  Him".  25  Ar.  on1?  na  *6  nins^Ma  oni  onapM»  ^»  'M^B 

"np  Mtta    Dnionano^  ]K  "then  why  did  He  punish  them,  since  by  necessity 
35  and  inevitably  they  must  enslave  them  as   He  had  decreed?"    Ma  fiB^l 
ntjaty  loa  nna  na»n»a  m»an  nnsna  ntw  DIWJ?  Br  mana  «!?ni  D»3»  nebi 
itaa  ona  na»n»n  d»n  (naa  So  d»n  (Mi  mta)  nitaa  mana  «^n  D»a»  nts1?! 
-«a»  ioa  ona  nawwn.  2?  Ma  nawnn;  Br  So  frvk  for  nn. 

2»  Ma  >  iV«3  nbn  ^a»n.          2»  Ma  .Tn11  ono;  Br  iins  for  mm.          3<>  Br 
40 


n  ps  Q'pnB  naie»  46 


pan 

to  yjmrp  ntyo^  naoo  *pto  wtew  ny  tea  nt 
nv,-6   mpt?  pjna  rkycb  yjmiv  t?an  ^pbno  pto  te  pi 
pan  ]B  pbnn  nt  'yjmnnt?  nya  nan  DBW  «"?  ,ntyo!?  nyyuno 
anew   9Qsnyop  o  ^wen  «ip!?ns  ntai  ,rmcb  yynrw  5 
pnn  "j«  ,iina«  pe«i  p  rin  f  Ten  nv  nn«  ny  "DT  ten 
103  Ton  DjntD  ^  i2Dte  onann  "wtwMfl  ,n<ity«*^n  <io<i 
fn  nnn  enn  te  pw  ,11^^  «in  rwyip  nei  rrrw  «in  iTnty 
yin  n^srn  D^nsion  "^3»  IDI^  n^osnn  14iDisin  nt  ^BDT 
nn  mp  nte  "nna  TJP»  no»  nvnV  DHTIJ;  «T»«I  r»n  n{y«  10 
no  nna 

:2°p  pyn  )s«i  ,trrnnin  nny»  n  awm  ^s»  nv 
n»a  22nno«oDi  ,21in^n  n^np  amoa  nain  pvn  nta 
D^nnia  24nr/v  nnnan  tea  n^on  n«s»ni  ,23^^  ^nioa  D"?IJ?  pyn 
m«a  ID«S  25-«n  nt  ^jn  ,r\y  nn«  nyai  nan  nn«  wa  ]«in  nno  15 

DBnnty  V"i  a^si  op 
loip  nya  nny  ren 

nty  3op«n  nt  n^sia  nny 
asi  man  ,T,TI?  ssa^n  ns"i»  i»a  sa 

SJ;D  miM  ;yyiin^  nsn  p  ,n^as«    a  ,nmn  am  ,34naipn  20 
103  ,]no  37^  viio  «^  nn^v  ^  ^mao  p«  inn^naa  ni^iyo 
,-pn  m*n  \n  ^opyn  nt  3»nn«aD  mo«i  n^noan  ssmwa 
42ia  ps-vw  4i»iTBn  ovnnn  n«sa  naai  ;ui  jni  210  nv^  woo 


»  Ma  -f  nea1?  nrv.  2  Ma  «m.          a  Ma  wn  IM.         <  Ma  >  rtfo. 

5  Br  p^>nfi.  «  So  Viv6  for  w-'wn  rmb.  ^  Ma  »»i3r>"».  »  Br  25 

D-p^in.  9  So  VWDtf.  I"  Ma  ]1S1  W.  I*  Ma  So  WIW».         «2  Br 

+  13.  13  Br  10«3  -WHO.  «*  Br  tt^^n  ^"B^.  1°  Br  So  ^»3  »3. 

16  Br  So  -WK  oil.  "  Br  'nan  ona  n^  I»KB  So  avon  ona  nr»  no. 

is  Ma  So  ]«in  ona.  "  Ma  «nnn\  2»  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  rnn  ND"?B 

•j'na  D^I  |«b«  ne  no«  ruN  n*B  fe  'iay  nto  npibw  "B.  Br  lain  annnn  i»«a  i«  30 
p  nain  v«i  »nnna  nn»»  D"«nn  iatsw  TIWH  nra  So  TIWH  n»a  wnnn11  i»«ai 
p  nann  yw  cnnnj  nn»»  n  Q'«nn  iawir.  21  Ma  unSw.  12  Ma  So 

2s  Br  ^W.  2*  So  n"J>  after  DMX&m.  25  Br  ^>»l 

.  2«  Ma  a«r»i.  27  So  jwia.  2«  Br  o^wn  So 

2»  Br  «•?  i»«a.        30  Br  itn  p«n  So  nwn  pun.          31  So  «•?.  35 
3»  Ma  i^n  nt.  33  So  n  yetotf  nann  Wav  34  Br  >  D»n  So  nsT» 

w  o»n.  35  Ma  ntwp.  36  So  ]W;  Ma  snats.  37  Br  >  i1?. 

38  Br  niinno  nxann  -i»«a.       39  Br  So  >,T\DNI,;  m«aon  for  nn«ae.       <»  Br 
+  Dio«a  So  -f-  nibsa.  *»  Br  t^i-vsa  Dii-tfia  Ma  BMVBn  ouinn  mina. 

<2  n  ]«nn»  =  Ar.  mnpn  ]«  "that  its  meaning".  40 


45  n  pis  D'pnB 

by  in  MWW  TOM  DK  npa6  zvby  yatioi  n  t?nai  nniK  ntfn  IK 
pyn  jw  ,nT3j>a  nu  naa  nn«n  m  TD  KJWI  n^  peon  nt  jwrw  nt 
5iK3os  p&n  K"73  *nm  irrrnaa  niKan  3m«n  ni^ya  ^>a  !?3K  ,p 
',-pnratKi  rrnnn  nwa»  sit?n  pnaa  wn«a  naa  ^  finrraym  n«on 
5  p^nn  nrai  ,n»r  'OKVtfi  rwjw  n^na  9nna  DIK"?  TOK  sm^vsa  on 

^e 
p 

,isnsp  i«  *]n«  inrn  »*p 
no  ^ao  ^nta  wsm  ,i7in»t 
10  :  "wmioi  m«n 


n?a 

25on  mynrw 

y  26nw  «^»  ntynty  ID«I  ,D^ait3  o^j;»n  nn  aiam 
is  29naa^  pwn%»  DTt6  28^i«i  p  pyn»  inw  ,ai&  i«  jn 

no  i&Ni  ,iiis"ia  yirsty  nn«  nwaym  D^sonn  p  rwjw  no 

p  n 

u5?  p  w 
34V|  iy 

20  DNsann  nana  1:00  Kso11  nil  m«  ^a  ^SK  nn*neen  no«en 

m«n  na^^  «im  p 

na 


>  Ar.  HiN3  1«  "or  cheat  him".     See  Ro.,  p.  68,  n.  4.     Br  HDH,  Br 
25  riiin,  hiphil  of  nv  "oppress,  maltreat,  overreach  in  dealing"  (HJN).         *  I.  T. 
>  n!?Nts  'B  ==  U1D03.         3  Br  n»»rg.  +  on.         •«  So  viTro:!  nvibni  ~b 

pa  for  DH2  imTDS  m«Dn.  »  Br  »arg.  ^.  ni^l  before  I^O11;  So 

e  So  +  viTnaa.  7  Ma  nnratto.  «  Ar.  ^yBN^N  ••B  Br 

Ma  So  ni'jlPBa.  9  Ma  >  ona.  »o  So  «!?»  IK.  «  Ma  Ta. 

30  12  So  +  nhytb.        u  Ar.  na  pTT  «02«  ban  hiK  Dn^>1pB  "and  when  they  said 
ban,  they  only  meant  by  it".    Ma  ''in  DiOK  DsD»n  T3  !?an  So  D'DWH 
»  Ma  >  pa.          is  Ma  nspi.          is  Ma  >  n*n.         17  So  Ti«n  Br 
is  So  pa.  19  Br  Ma  vninuoi.  20  Ma  D^oan.  2t  So  TO. 

22  Ma  pnai  Ta  ^ax.          23  go  +  nir».          ?*  Br  'OIK.          25  Ma  >  on. 

35  26  Br  So  im  im  27  Ma  ni»».  23  Br  +  ll?  Ma  +  Kin.  29  Br 

maabi  pixiv6.  so  So  im  a"jm  31  Ma  >  -ie»i.  32  Ma  So  > 

n»  iriN.  33  Ma  >  mipmi.  3i  Ma  >  «  n»  So  'n  b».  35  Ma  > 

warn*  bx  bx  o-'sa  b>«.  36  Ar.  aro1?^.  37  Ar.  =  ina'an  msn 

as  I.  T.  >  Ar.    ^>  =  ^>ax.          39  Br  Ma  iaa.          *<>  Ma 


n  pnfi  D'pis  riMsv  44 


ite  nn  ,invn 

iwto  /mum  nom    ano^m  2BUii»m  teaman 
nte  D*wn  nrtiyBP  in  pso  p«  IPK  na«n  n:o«  ,«ttaa  £  fMn 
irnrp-o^  man  ^ntea  'jwjr  *6  mrv  D«I  JWJP  HST  n«  t1?  nmoa 
n«  loavn  9"pfi^  <nna  ntn  ia«  ,sini^  <itn  n\n  nt  'asai  ,vty  5 
nnnai  ,inai  pin  n«i  nien  nw  man  n 

arm  ,ona 
a*m  ^ 
p  Da  i»a^m  ,ni^on  i^iio^a  «a»  n»  bi  Dnwy1?  n 

npjna  n^yi  ^-IOHI  ;"mina  airoty  ica  n^3  «m»nn  10 

noa  /ui  nentea  m»s  )s  ,i»^aa  D^ 
nta  n^«^ain  23nsoai  mina  22naim  ;w 

no 


nwan  m«n  WPB  nsp  ia{ynsi  DI«  15 
^nte  nti  ,iTa  sopaon  nt  nvn  i«  , 

nairoa 

w  «*?  o»m  nwo 
n»  pi  , 


i  Ar.  hto»y\  b«nb  rAa  tnni  "but  this  is  wholly  impossible  and  absolutely  20 
false".  2  So  mtwn&m  n^Dtsifcn.  3  Ar.  mm,  read  as  noun  nnm, 

or  verb  Dim.    I.  T.  construes  as  noun,  Poc.  and  Wo.  as  verb.  4  Ar. 

nVntyVN,  generally  translated  by  minn  or  mn.  See  Munk,  6rwde,  I,  p.  68, 
n.  3;  Holzer,  Dogmenlehre  p.  24,  n.  6;  Peritz,  Sefer  ha-Mitzwoth,  p.  6,  n.  1. 
*  So  IVObl.  e  Ar.  •jin  p  ^«»n  "may  He  be  exalted  above  this!".  25 

^  Ar.  tos'  K1?  »»  ]N1  ^rB  «»  f«.  Br  So  nSY  «*?  DM1  Ma  *h  D«1.  8  irm*1?  ,  ,  .  ^3D 
=  Ar.  f\'fnfh»  n\b  ^l?i^B  -^n  ^»  n^>  inp  «bl  lai  T3  p  "without  any  constraint  or 
compulsion  upon  him  in  regard  to  it,  and  therefore  the  commandments  were 
necessary".  So  Wimyw.  9  Br  uyisb.  to  Ma  >  DVn.  »t  Br  +  "int<<1 
A  'ts«  p  So  >  nn  run  men  n«i.  «  So  D».  «  So  >  om«.  "  Ma  30 
.  I.  T.  >  Ar.  TWn^«1  "and  the  practising  of".  15  Ma  +  Dm.  is  Ma 
see  p.  43,  n.  30.  n  I.  T.  >  Ar.  pnbw  =  nD«n.  So  +  man  ^ 

wa.          i«  Ma  So  >  I&NI.          >»  Br  Ma  So  irroa  ,  .  ,  "PS  for  ^B*  'a 
baian.  20  Ma  Viann.  21  Br  Ma  >  asu  22  i.  T.  >  Ar. 

«nj  ==  nwo.  23  So  *ianai.  24  Ma  rwian.          25  So  +  T^»n  n^».  35 

26  Br  So  p  Di  tun.  27  Ma  ntt1?.  28  Ma  nann  Bmybv.  29  Ma 

JvaVfi.  Jo  Ma  ntn  iit3»n.  31  So  n»M.  32  Br  So  «'n.  33  Ma 
So  nra&n.  34  So  rfn.  35  Ma  nrasn  So  !rra»  mwn.  36  Ma  ^»i\ 
37  Ar.  nplD  IK  "or  steal  from  him";  Br  li&D  333  Ma  >  1333  1N  So  +  13DO. 


43 


n  ps  D'ps 


pits 
miaan 


\w  DKI  ,mne  2atep>  wii^m  innetowi  ,iriBm 
:pBD  «te  vTiVrvao  aw  te«  ,3^»ni  wpa  pi 
^oon  «npa*  na»«  snwjttpn  awnn  *6a»  nt 
tya  IK  nty&  tya  vnwr  m«  T^IBP  iaa>rwa  nvnnwt 
5  jrw  7Si«  aiBN   ,mana  ann  nvyen  ty  maio  annnan  ,jnan 
VWID«»  102  r  WDI^BBI  irmwo 
«  ^  nnioo 


10  m       15vn  vmys  y  n"oio  DT«n  rrn  i«i  ,a  nt 
noa  on«^  n^nn  jw  nn«  mei  npt?  ten  nvn  iTnnnwi  nmnn 
te  niD^i  nno^nnni  nioSn  tow  a^nno  n^n  pi  , 

«  DTNrw  nn«  "n^ea^  ten  nt  te  i^iTni 
nt  D^iown  ryi  ^h  i»yina  innna^  rrnaen 
is  ,n^iiten  men  b  **Tmmn  ,n^iten  neann  isjnv  20snteoi  /iiten 
23«^»i  ^i^nsp1?  irmp  ttoD  «•?  22-1^:  ^y  p  oi  a»a^m  ^oan  rrm 
nn  inrpp  mans  nw  nn«  pwi^  a^iiinn  pvoa*  n?a»  , 
p  D2  )3n^  *]^«^  )iy»tr  anij^i  neb  s 


20  DBV  nj;  nte 


2»p  n:  nitea  vm  , 


,  «  Ma  8W1  T"lSn  |0.  2  Ma  ini^2p\  s  Ar.  n33B  "but  with  difficulty". 
*  So  U1K3.  s  So  nuiw»3.  6  Ma  naar  So  npBr1  cod.  73  (see  p.  42,  n.  1) 
VQD\  '  MSB.  edd.  "38,  but  Ar.  ni8  (=  rww),  which  should  be  emended 
25  to  838  (=  '38)  rather  than  Heb.  '38  to  nnK.  8  Ma  XTOB.  9  Br  So  W8. 
»«  WB'  ..  (Ma  tf^fl)  ...  81?!  thus  Ma,  which  =  Ar.  n^15'  H313  3*183  p  nb>  ^85  8"?1. 

Br  So  (Mi  n&'tf)  int5"t»  Ws  (Mi  QDSP)  iosy  nbn  K'30  8^1.  »»  So  +  |3. 

«  Ma  ruiwn.  »3  So  >  TO.  »  Ma  nsn  18  p»x 

»6  Br  Ma  ,Tn.          "  n^esbi  bin  =  Ar.  roj?  "sport,  play". 
30  construed  with  nw  «*?«?  and  mt  'n*?3D1  See  Ro.,  p.  67,  n.  1. 

Ma  =  Ar.  318*3  ]o  nun'  '»8i3  Br  \rbv  yintt  ini8  rms&n  Diun  "3BB.   So  >  yin». 

20  Br  +  rp  vbv.       21  Ma  n'3ibs  nesnn  So  m^s  nnsn  So  nruii.       "  Ma 

blDi  So  miB3.  «  Br  So  p  .  .  .  p  for  8^  .  .  ,  8^>.  24  Mi  3UW. 

25  H13115  =  Ar.  linpo  1133D  "compelled  and  constrained".  26  Ma  >  ^. 

35  27  Ma  ViW^.  28  Ma  nvt'.  29  Ma  >  p.  30  Ar.  nKl8inDp^K 

Vorsichtsmajh-egeln,   see  Friedlaender,    Sprachgebr.,   sub  voce.     Ma   m3U3n. 

si  Ma  D»na.         32  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  n^K  "food";  Br  So  edd.  pwan.         33  Ar. 

13»;  Br  So  n»3.          34  Br  So  or6  n»nn      nn^n. 


»»  So 

»  Ma  n'n. 

1S  n»B8  "H 

»»  Thus 


rv6p  inv  rrrvfayB  wm  jnorb  i«  ntyio1?  pi» 
rrm  Pirn  6^?«  new  WB  5m«  rrrpao  n 

tsyo  n  'mnn  7  ima 
nr6 


pi 

nt  "fyn  , 

D«  mn^  pie  V'i  "IIM  "nwi  ^saya  7is»  naa  nn  inv      »  10 
noa  np  inv  n^  itB  nn«i  ,2onnn»2  ina  nw  miain 


i  Thus  Ma  So  edd.  =  Ar.  n'JHDaw^  nit3B^«  'B  "concerning  human,  na- 
tural disposition"  or  "inclination".  Br  cod.  73  (see  Ro.,  p.  30,  n.  4;  p.  31, 
a.  2;  p.  62.  n.  1)  "BTUKn  won.  2  So  nbnna.  3  So  +  01*6.  *  nrna 

.  .  .,   thus   Ma  =  Ar.   KHTi  b«S?B«  p   n^S>   SlDK  l^n  'JXSBX  ]13n  ^K3  Br  15 

nibirse  v^»  rv\hp  inv  DHD  nnxn  m^s?B  nvrn  So  ona  nn«n  W'JIPB  nvm 
^»  n^pi  nmp  inv.  »  Ma  rnxn.          e  Ma  V».          '  So 

So  >  nt».         9  Ma  hp  Ma  >  vhy.    Br  marg.  "jp>  BJJO  12 
V"?».  10  1^1  Dili1?  =  Ar.  isBnVs  "the  memory".  »  Ma 

12  mh  rmh  !?»3  »<«»  =  Ar.  'mba  p»  p  "than  a  phlegmatic  individual".  20 
So  hyyo  for  ^x?3  BTNB.  13  Br  isien.  i«  Thus  Ma  for  Ar. 

(Poc.)  nip  ma  n«nn  «bi.   Br  vnmia  niw  xbi  So  rmns  T\I»S  «bi.  "Wolff  (p.  93), 
unnecessarily,    reads   Ninn  "properly  guided"  for  IWin  which,  however,  if 
changed  to  iNnn,  gives  an  acceptable  Ar.  form  from  ^  "to  rise,  be  shaken, 
roused    or   stirred"  =  I.  T.  Tf\y\    Poc.  excitetur;    "and  his  faculty  is  not  25 
aroused",   "stirred  up"  or  "awakened".  15  Thus  So  edd.  =  Ar. 

WK&K  B^SK  inn;  Br  SOBS  a»n  n»  Ma  apn  yaan  nt.       ie  Ar.  nsi  noj?3  "with 
difficulty  and  exertion".  n  So  b».  »«  Ma  >  Bye.  i»  Br  So 

nvr.          2<>  Ma  >  mnea  4  ,  .  V"»;  Br  nine  So  pso  *bz  for 


41  t  pis  D'p-is 

pm 


,  &ya  ma  naa  :wn  n"j> 
nt 


pi  , 
10  tpnen  n»n  n«n^  Witt  i»«  pyn  Kin  mi  , 


oven 

)sn  i^na^  •«?«  an 
nan  amp  ty  na«  Ds 


So  Haw.          2  Thus  edd.  =  Ar.  n»M  '&.    Br  Ma  So  1bS»2.          3  So 
.    So  +  itm    Ma  win.  *  Ma  innann.  *  So  pi  'n  p 

m«n.  e  So  iniwts>.  7  Br  So  >  De6.  »  So  +  p  p. 

»  Ma 


t  p-IB  D'plB  miO» 


40 


VTBK  ,DyDD  nBi     nKiaan  *w&  nn»n  WJWTB  rop 

Ki  «wam  wets  np^noo  inKiai  Kin  K'aj  DK  3oyi2n 
,ioya  'Tonar  ny  oyD  TOKa  6nKiaan  UBB  *nptoiDi  TOK 

nil  JJUB  sb  inp  8nnjn 

10*pv  ty  tiawvi  ny  to  n"?  U-OK  aapyn?  njKim  nmKm      5 
TBKI  ,nmaK  apy^  nn  wn  IBK  i«na  "ipaniff  iy  ,anipn  nn 


:nno»  ^in  lino  K^K 
nniK  TDH  «^  ns^no  b 
0^3  wtotwi  " 
IBKI  , 


mn  /m  an«n 


nna 


21iniK 
mip 


TK 


p  ,ir6it  ny 


mnn 

T» 
vty 


nt 


-pne  *i  ,nj;  ^na  K   mw 
"wan  ntws  VT  i»K3i 
nnan  n^ye  u  IB^W  10 


now  Kim  mx  Kin 


is 


ny  1 

^aK  K\nn 
nvi^  Kin 
p  in^>ir  Kinn 


ITSO  20 
im»n 
f\r\r\w 


2  Ma 


3  Ma 


»  Ar.  =  nvrvnsn.    Br  Ma  So  nin^ns. 

>  o»wn  Vs.  *  Br  H-oni.  5  Ma  njAnoitf.  «  uatso  np^noi  i»« 
HKOin  =  Ar.  ^ni^K  m»  ^N  "who  lacked"  or  "was  deprived  of  revelation".  25 
7  Ma  Ton  i»«.              *  Ma  >  nroi.               »  So  apj?11  ^»».  10  I.  T. 

>  Ar.  ni2K  •=  1:2.  »  Br  -i»2nn».  12  Ma  So  Hainan.    I.  T. 

i      „  . 

>  Ar.  iran  n»D  ]»  rrnfi^H  |»«-I3«^  nn«»!?K.  13  Tar^wm  Onkelos  to 
Gen.  XLV.  27:  pni3«  3pjr  nib  n«iaa  nn  mwi.  "  Br  nan  So  >  nan. 

s  Ma  m«»a.  "  Ma  nibsfii.  J8  Br  30 

19  Br  tnian  So  v'»n  mian.  20  Ma 

21  Ma  >  iniK  So  vb«.  22  So  nwmn  bstwi. 

"  Ar.  ;»  --iai  "and  he  qualified,  defined".    Ma  + 
by,  probably  =  Ar.  \v.  *&  Br  Ma  >  ib.  26  Ma  nplpn.  2T  Br 

Ma  +  mi3j»a  So  +  iniK  n«n  irK»  n»«D  I^BK.  28  So  ^«.  29  Ma  35 

'BK.  3»  Ma  |n  D'-ejBb  ba«.  si  Br  +  ib.  32  .  .  .  Kin 

iniK»»o  =  Ar.  miii  nns  p  bsn11  |K  in.  Br  initose  nnso«D  m«n  n^T  KNT  Ma 
imw-'so  noiND  on«b  ,Tn"»  Kin  So  iniK^fi  nna«  m«b  (Tnn»  Kin.    DIK  or 
probably  did  not  originate  with  I.  T.  »3  Br  >  »BJ3.  s«  Br  n 


«  So  +  ri"v. 
n»no  So  v'»n  nine. 
>  initcsa  nn^tsK  by. 
13  So        Kinn.         , 


39  t  pis  Q'piB 


Dan 
Kin 

B*IB«  Kim  ,T»y  pcnoon 

pi  ,1*?  Benson  «^  n»a  'aw  &6i  net  ^  e^mit?  nan  ^  p^so^ 
5  nsyni  njnn  Ilssa  rnina  avira  V'l  Jinan  ionise  »p  oa  «in 


nnon 


nno 

10  n^«  ^y  17«fci  i«ao  n»«i  ,m«nn  an  nwan  ni^ysD  nn 

"I&K  1s«<iai  n"y  in  pi 
na  »a»  «"?ty  i9s"j>Ni  , 

2o-n«^a  «a  ^>a«  ,^mi^^  pnn 
,ain»  na  an1?  ^m1?  23vi7a  si«n  rpn  «bi  tynpon 
15  in^Ka  n«sai  .^nasty  n^ai  anrr  sa  SD^  27nsa  naan 

nnsiaa  29na  B^BBW  B"y«i   niitiin  nia  V't 


i"? 

an  ,ona  «sva 
20  Ti^a  40^^  IK  nna 

ia 


nn»n 


i  Br  Ma  canni.  2  Ma  Kin  W«n  So  +  ^D.  3  So 

25  «  Br  +  m.  s  Br  V'll.  e  Ma  pa».  7  So  ltn\  »  Ma  pi. 

a  Ma  >  Kin  So  wn  p  DJ.  «>  So  n^jjen.  "  Ma  <abi.  "  So 

iibK.  is  Br  Ma  nfoyb.  "  Ma  imnna'  So  innns\  »  I.  T.  > 

Ar.  K^N.  i«  Br  >  N<3in.  »7  Ma  So  -f  !?3.  »»  Br 

Ma  +  ^Nitf1  \nb«  So  >  KOi  n"».  «  So  B"»«.  20  -iitca  «a  =  Ar. 

30  p;  Ma  >  -MM.  21  go  ^iie.  z»  So  wiann.  23  Br  +  pi. 

2*  n6  .  .  .  ntpnt?  =  Ar.  unpon  n11!  ]«<i»^  n^n«'  D^  n^«  |«  "that  God  did 
not  consider  him  worthy  of  building  the  Temple".  25  Ar.  r6  b»p\  = 

b  IBNI.  26  Ar.  nns  K^>.  I  Ch.  XXII  8:  Ds3i  D'on  -3  "»ty^  n'3  nisn  «S 

••ifib  H2»1«  n3BB>.  M.  often  quoted  from  memory.  27  Br  So  JV3n.  28  So 

35  -f-  M»£.  29  Ma  Nb«  »Btf  «Vty  D"J?«1.  so  Br  So  n»K.  31  Br  So 

-j-  ps1?  onV  nrn^i.  32  Ma  So  ib3.  33  Ar.  ^WDW  Bla  +  n"». 

34  Ar.  3pn.  35  Br  So  instf.  as  So  wva  for  i»»  ni^iBts.  3'  So 

-f-  DP  w  o»n.  38  Ma  >  rv'v.  39  So  >  one.  *o  Ma  n^w  So 

+  ]ne.  *t  Ma  njwD»n.  "  Br  +  in«o.  «  Br  Ma  >  pion. 

40  «*  So 


woo  3tn  anvonai  nwnoa  *oo'  nann 


7  wan  ram  no«»  ny  ,rw«aaa  nntya  ^  o»n  *?«  onmp  ^  mojno 
DIDK   Kim  nrnto  note  rrvTO  nn«  rnrno  ^nnwD  o»n  sn«n 

5 


niwnc  pe  niwnsn  pi  ,nno 
ana  »»nno  "nwriB  )nei  ,niiann  pnni  , 
]m  ,fft  nonm  fpoon  nan«i  ,nirym  ,oyam  ,nnm  ,ni«m  ,ni«nn  10 
wwnsn  I^KI  ,7Oin  pisa  anjrra  mon  wiat  nasi  ,i«o  nm 

pi  an«n  )^a  ni^iaon  nwnon  on 


nwnon  on  wot»  i»a  ninn    «  nm 

i     IB 


niptnni  nnon 


"concerning  the  partition,  or  wall"  =  Ar.  ajnta  ^6  "concerning 
the  veils,  or  screens".  See  Munk,  Guide,  III,  56,  note  3;  459,  note;  Geiger, 
Was  hat  Muh.  aus  d.  Judent.  aufgenommen,  p.  81;  Steinschneider,  Mai- 
monides1  Maamar  ha-Yihud,  p.  21,  n.  44;  Ro.  p.  113,  n.  5;  Wo.,  p.  48,  20 
n.  1;  Holzer,  Dogmenlehre,  p.  38,  n.  157.  yi»,  "meaning".  So  Ma  rPi'»l. 
2  Ma  rwnoii  nnina.  s  Ma  Br>.  <  So  p  ty».  s  Ma  p. 

6  Br  in«ts.  7  So  n"JWB.  »  Ma  +  n«.  »  Br  So  in«o. 

iO  Ar.  tr^p&Da.  11  Ma  So  >  D^».  «  So  >  nMltSH  D»  K"1^pBD81. 

is  Ma  So  jwwn.          "  So  Tnmn.          «  Br  n^wtai.  "  Ma  i«anii».  25 

"  Ma  -f  no.          is  Ma  >  nwn&  . . .  n^3D3.    Br  nin-'na.         i»  So  rrnan, 
20  Ma  So  >  nton\  21  Ma  pi.  22  Ma  DDYililJW  So  DiTmaw». 

»  Ma  pi.  2«  Ma  H33na.  ^  Ma  "in«V.  2e  Br  So  -f  ^3. 

27  Br  So  >  Dfc. 


37  i  p-iB  n-p-iB  naiet? 

rial 


vnpn  ntyn  D«np  itr«  nn 


5  nniK  wip  n»«i  /tti  n^ntran  "pym  ,nan«  nis  pa  ,7) 

no  ^s 


p  awn 
nn  ^Bn 
10  witt  19no^i  18>i2Di  /71nm«nty  no  njr&K  ^y  mio 

jpisn  nt 


i  Ma  >  ntm  nai.  2  Ma  onnan.  s  So  V(n«.  «  Ar.  yw. 

5  Ma  nn  D^IMS.  e  Ma  ]W\.  7  Br  ona.  8  Ma  +  nn. 

9  Br  So  nan.  «  So  +  ^.  "  So  nt.  12  Ma  p.  «s  So  > 

15  *6p.        «  So  ppinew.        »  Ar.  nosa  taayi  =  iwaa  ^wa^;  see  p.  36,  notes 
5  and  31.       16  Ar.  a^"»  p^Bini  "and  a  wonderful  reconciliation".  "  Ar. 

.    Br  inianfi«».          ^  Br  Ma  naa.          19  Ma 


i  pns  o^nc  naio»  36 

3  8^8  nt  nn  *6i  ,iaaa  Vna  nsr  nana  2^nan  ^a  na«i  anann 
aa  itoaa  ny*  211  ^  bna  waaa  ^ 
ni8na  m«n  48,-w  iv*  anp  nta  inn 


p  pya»  )m  m»«  «im  ,minn  smoNn  5 


nei 

"nt  nnnio  ]n  natwian  n>nnn  onoKan  w  «sBWBi  plan  « 
Him  ,^3  an^D  «^n  )s8i  ,n»8  nmv  ^8  ,15ppyn)w  ,ntn« 
^  ^a»  na«  i»«  17)n  mjn  D^iDi^sn  ^8  )n  T»«  nijnnt?  10 
nn      a  vw  n8  »na*i  nn^8  i»ni«n^  ISB  awn 


om  ,i 

rap  nni8  i«ip^  ,26pro^  25vn  n^8i  nnaa  *6  248^8»  15 
pun  ]^8i  ^sni^D^n  n«an  ananan 
8V  nawnn  »san»i  ,n"ion  «\T»  1^8  ppin» 
anann  ^a«  fana  nyaana  29*iyasn  8"?i  ^a  myin  180  ia*    nwnn 
ibiDii  awn  32"inv  ana  31njp  »aian»  soa^aann  on^j?  natw 
rn  «V  minn  8VaV8{y  n»8  nti  ^snrya^n  nmnn  an  ,^na  20 

na«  nt  nsai  ,^a 

n"y  anaan  nai    minn  378{?8  ana  jw» 

9^8  na« 


»  Ma  >  ^3.  2  Br  !?ni».  s  Ma  So  IP.  <  So  nrr6.          s  Ar. 

HDB3  B3NS  =  l»Bi3  ^0;  see  n.  31,  and  p.  37,  n.  15.    Ma  >  nvnj^  . . .  Nnn?.  25 
e  iTHtni . . .  Nrrw  =  Ar.  ]«  Kinai  nosi  B3«s  |«D3«^N  \\y  \»  "that  man  should 
govern  his  soul,  but  they  forbid  that".     Br  So  VTlTruntf  IV.         ^  Ma  B"»K. 
a  Ma  (T>D«.  a  Ar.  ^«^m  |n  ]i»ot»  ]an  "in«.  10  Br  bib.  »  Ma 

>  wsx  s«  a^nn  n»3  "jDN1?.  «  So  "B^>.           13  Ma  So  'awsB.  »*  Bi- 

nt, is  Br  -J3.          is  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  *i«^3  "diversity".    Br  So  npbm.  30 

"  So  >  )n.  is  Br  So  mNn&n  ;o.  i»  Ma  So  nVui  TOJJI.         20  Ar. 

]"^«1^X.    Br  So  DM  D.N.  21  Br  So  nBNff.  22  Br  So  Dn^y. 

23  I.  T.  >  Ar.  D«bobK  DiT^y.        2*  So  -fy»vf.        25  Ma  So  nn.        26  Br  Ma 
So  yny^j.  "  So  o^wsnn.  23  Ar.  rfapj^K  r«iw^«.    So  rise. 

29  Ma  nyasnn.       so  Ma  o^Dbn.        si  Ar.  noBil?  D3t«VN  ]«  =  wsaa  ^icnw;  35 
see  n.  5,  and  p.  37,  n.  15.          32  Ma  >  one.    So  -f-  xin.          33  Ma  ton  for 
on.    Ar.  JTOBD^N  »*Ki»b«.  3*  So  m«.  35  Ma  D».  36  Ar.  toa\ 

Ma  So  n\T.  ST  Ma  So  pi.         33  Br  l^»»n»,  later  hand.        39  Ma  VN. 


m<  n«  wawn  pi  ntojmn  Tonn  p  IBM  Bne 

en  n» 
nijnn 


«ini  snmtan  rwy^i  ,WBI  nittni  im«ni  vnvo 

no  nn«  lo^ivBa  T»»i  win 
neaonai  ,12)n^«  rpm  m«nn  «ini 

vi  awn 
Toro 
i  ,jnn 

10 


m 

innaw  ne^  2sm«i  27D^ain 

,pyn  3°nD  D^oan  nan 
is  ran^«  nwn»  «^>  nsy«o  D^  invi  awn  viv  nn 
inn  awn  inr  sigr^n  nw  I»K  te»  ne«»  ny  ,onmna 
nta  w^am  ,^ni  inv  pmna  nytwni  nway^  inpwn  32,Tnn 


Ar.  title  nosa^  »n«s^«i  &tt&ta  p  pis^M  ^B  =  Vwiisni  Tonn  p  i»« 

.     See  Ko.,  p.  92,  n.  8.  2  Ma  >  WB33.  3  tWWn 

20  Ar.  H^M&^M.    Ma  Q-'awnn.  *-Ar.  n«T^«  =  D^tsn.  «  !?»  p^n  — 

Ar.  *)btO  "differ  with,  disagree,  object,  oppose".  6  Ma  So  ^K.         7  Br 

>  vh».          s  Br  marg-  niaiBn  ntw^i.          '»  Ma  nn^K  nvnoo.  «o  Br  So 

in^ws^.  i»  So  >  vh».  «  Ma  >  V"i"^«.  13  Ma  D'BDi^anD. 

u  Br  TDn».  «  So  +  it?B33.  «6  Ma  +  D'&unV'&n  ia.  »  Edd. 

25  wsaa  b»i&n»  no«  ^a«.  »»  Ma  tois  !?N.  »•  So  >  imx  nww. 

20  Ma  npwn».  »t  So  wsaa.  21  So  n"»n».  23  Ma  >  IB«. 

2*  Ma  »i.  Js  Ma  nnetr.  26  Ma  +  ^.  >T  Ar.  j»it»^«  =  miwr. 

2«  Ar.  pB«iab«  "agreeing".        29  Ma  +  ^y.        3°  Ma  m  ^»y.        31  So  m«n. 

«  So  +  ini". 


n  pis  n'p-iB  MIB»  34 

,J?BD 


4«in  nn  ,DsDty  Dty    VJT 
mn  na^'^wi  inw«i»  no  iijptf  mi  ,pnsn  ma 

imonpnn 


1  Ma  So  nbKitf.  2  Ma  rb*. 

»  I.  T.  >  Ar.  MnsDO1?**  rnn  "B  =  unseen  n«ta.  <  Ma  in». 


33 


naai 

4)vy  nnonna  natwian 
ny  nnaan 
poynn1?  »p  m 
s  ,"nw^n  moo  w»  ny 
m 


10 


n  pis  D'pis 

n«a  rm  V't  ana«  Kim  ,maann  bifi  nat 


anann 

p  ,nwn  wo1?  aw  TNI  »sri  row? 
Damns'? 
pan 


"nniani 
DTK  nws 
nino 


nanna 
,19n«o 


nannen  n«tt?  jrn 
nn«i 


«in.n  nann 


inn 


naai  ,29«  n«  nan«    «im  nnx  nan  moo 
^ei  onjn  7ann  ^aa  na«i  p  m  31pyn  m 
20  s"v«  na«n  «vn  n^an  «inn  tysb  tr»n»  V'n  nn^ay  nan1?  I 
nnspa  ^a  pj^n  nt  rry  D^oan  i^a  naai  ,nn«  ns»  nn^ay  ia 
n«o  na^»  n«nin     yn  nt  to  ^y  nnia 
nt 


Br 


Br 


"Vtbrh.  3  Br  l?»ni.  Ma 

25  Tiarm.  So  -n»m.  *  Ma  \>y<y  Ton  na.  5  nnttj?n  "turbid"  = 

Ar.  n2»S^«,  "difficult,  hard".   Br  edd.  nnwan.    So  >  nnw»n.          «  Ma  *|U. 

7  Br  So  W1W3.  s  So  TlX.  9  Ma  >  p  Di.  10  Ma  )r»3. 

11  Br  w^n.        12  So  +  iin.         13  Ma  «Diini.    So  -|-  «nmnan  '!?»  ne«  nn. 

14  So  l^K.  Ma  rwn.  is  Ma  n«Wj>  So  iTtW.  is  Ar.  '3«1«VK1  = 

30  D^am.  "  Ar.  2K"fil7«i  =  n^iam.  is  miem  ==  Ar.  rww  "and 

difficult   to   reach".     Mss.  edd.  miOHl,  which    goes   back  to  a  very  early 
scribal  error.  is  Br  1KB  1NO.    Br  >  ^VU.    So  >  1NO. 

20  So  -ox.  21  So  !?na  IK  pep.  12  So  >  nai. 

23  Ma  n^a  ^>K.  24  Br  !?arfin.  «  Ma  Ka\ 

26  So  Kinn  Ma  >  K"nn.  27  Ma  So  >  inw  tm. 

28  So  >  tvbyn.  «  I.  T.  >  Ar.  TH'JK.    So  v'»n. 

so  Ar.  OKW?K  Dn^J)  «^3KbK  "the  prophets"  etc.  3i  So  > 

«  Br  >  ii»Ki.  3S  Ma  n&Di  nsp  TK. 

3<  Ma  i^>Ka  owyn  So  ^a  nnwm. 


35 


n  pna  D'piB  naiat?  32 


nina     a  rwerv  Ha.  nwn  2     inK>3D  ^oni  IBII  Jnwna  ia 
nityoa  yiiD  s^ao  WBI  poynni  ,Dnste  *)iin  na«  nn  TBPK  t?Bin 
,nijnn  pi  nioann  p  «ime^  no  to  pi  ,nvte»n  nityoai  nnen 
noi  ,6Dna-n  p  n  »p«   ,KYin  n^anV  70  jno  Kint?  no 
,D^nnn  »IBDI  ,patwin  smteBO  K<nn  n^ana  ^  ntyin  5 
nanni  "D^p»en  ro^m  /ononinte  w^wwo  nmn^i 
nsieni  wa  ^s»n  nan  ^nni  ,te»n  12mr6  nna  miian  rrm 
nt  i^  nwi  ,VI^TO  14sns^n  »pnn  njrr  pip  on«^  isy^^ 
pi  ,a0n  nw^jno  nn^o«  "ny^  nn  JTCW 
wsia  prn  nms  i«  n^jnn  in  WBI^  w«^»  noa  «"?«  ian^  715  10 
i«  2on^D  i«  n^yo  nat^a  IK  n^yaa  IK  noana  IK  ,IBIIO  19iK 
rm*  DK  niiJ^  onan  niinonn  sl?j;a  n^p  ^  ,niu»  21i«  nm 
6i  ono  ipnnn^  TV  Qi«  ^a  *?SK  D"iDn^>  ia 
wyea  'n11  HBK  n«"in  K^n  ,n^jnD  KNHI  a^ina  Kin 

^  n»  bi  D^non  IIDDI  ,22)jtt3  p«  ntyy»ai  is 
no  pi  ia  niiian  pK  an^ini  o^aien  natyi  ••KII'?  man  ninnonn 
/(n^Kn  aoitsn  711  24^nK  DTK  'i 


^  piyn  nt  ^K  pan?  ^  ^  ,IKD  nann  inoxoo 
nta  i^ia11  28K^>  DK  Dvi^Kn  ,maa  ant  Dipn  nity^  IK  anta  D^nan  20 
rrnn»  ny  wnbn  moo  ^^nTi  ,«nan»    na  WBI 


1  So  12.    So  nitnas.  2  Ma  V»i.  3  So  ^no.          *  So 

5  So  [p«]»  nea  bnn'-w  ••s  ^»  «|«i.  «  onan  ...]"«  =  Ar.  rr* 

7  Ma  So  +  12.  s  So  rtww.  9  Ma  1BD  IK.  10  Ar.  n 

"geometry";  Br  no^an^K  Ma  KOTinto  So  nman  b«  edd.  noiann  ^>«.        «  Ma  25 

n  So  +  onn.          is  So  -f  1^.          u  Ma  nsien.        18  Ma 
for  TIT  nt.  is  Ma  ris^T  pp!?.          »  So  ^ama.          18  So  wa11^. 

>»  So  >  IK  waaa.  »o  So  i^we  for  nbwts  IK.  ai  So  >  IK.  «  Ma 
So  >  |»aa  ^IK  niwaai.  23  So  +  iiaots.  s*  So  ^UK.  J5  So  •>a-no. 
is  nnn  d'jnn  .  .  .  H^KH  aitsn  =  Ar.  TK^IK  .  .  .  "^IKH.  27  So  +  ^K.  30 

28  Thus  Br  Ma  =  Ar.  N^K  Sr&K  "unless,  unless  possibly",  Lane.  So  DWH 
N1?  DK  D\n!?Nn  ;  edd.  K1?  DN  D'Kan,  D"Kan  being  an  attempt  to  correct  the  mis- 
understood trn^Nn  thought  to  be  an  adjective  modifying  Vliaa;  cf.  Ro., 
p.  109,  n.  1.  See  on  this  passage  Bacher,  Gedenkbuch  Kaufmann's,  p.  193. 
See  also  Saadia,  Emunot  we-De'ot  (ed.  Slucki)  p.  32,  and  further  p.  115.  35 
where  |K  «"?K  DH^K  =  Heb.  'D.  Cf.  Moreh,  I.  76,  Second  Argument:  p 
'ai  n^nn  Kb  DK  (edd.  n^n^Kn)  D^nbKn  anann;  II.  22:  a^wn  «|ni»a  ban 
'31  IttK11  »b  DK  (D7l!?K  n"i);  and  Scheyer  on  al-Harizi's  translation  of  this 
passage;  also  Munk,  Guide,  I,  p.  453,  n.  4,  a  moins,  par  Dieu!,  and  Ibn 
Daud,  Emunah  Ramah,  p.  53.  29  Ma  prTVI.  so  Br  mjtt.  40 


31  n  piB 


nnb  vty  2vnjmn  DM  pi  ,  lorfc  nwne  Di«n  Bfiat?  ,ma*ijm 
waani  maaa  *tos&ni  ,nw  ^oai  owan  njro^a  rrvDs 
men  TID^I  psan  avrw  noo  6nta  *«vai  rosvi  nrrcrn  mam 
nwoa  nanan  ivtem  ,»ia  s^w?  nt  ^aa  naiiam  ,naoo 
5  iwiD  n^an  r?rr  "peon  mapa  poyrwa  pi  ,naan 


no  V 

"»pnn  nt 

]o  miay  nnirpai  rrna^  H\TI  nwosn  ^nntonn  ^K  y^anai  , 
10  wri^VB  "iV^a  na  sa  ,  "nnaam  nan«a  r«  n\in  «bi  ,m!?nan  nniayn 


ni«n»  on«  tysaty  mn  aia  ^nn  ?K  anj;  pto 
nt  ,owns  nin-'D^  i«  n»p  ^in^  nao  iTiT» 
«in  Da»«  ,22  Q^  «^n  nty«o  m«n  ^>yis  nt 
15  WK  ^y»  n\T  Daa«i  ,iei 

p«oan  te*n  anyn 

pi  ,inB  vn^ysa  m«n     aa  ntai  njnn         VIB  27nn 

ptan 


20 

nt  nnaty  iea  o  ,TDH  nt  p«i  ^aV  3«n^nn  p  inie^i  isia  nwna 
won  32n«an  i«  te«on  n«an  3lnn«n  nt  ina  ,ni«nan  rwan 
no 


»  Ar.  WBnofi^K  nTn^N  rpn»^H  nfi»B^«3  "by  appetising,  agreeable,  and 
25  palatable  food".          2  Ma  TYIWVT.          3  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  '1K11D  0^3  "black 
gall".   Br  mvw  mno  So  (t?  mo  edd.  minty  me.         *  So  tonsai.        5  So 
.  «  Ma  So  era.  '  Thus  Ma  =  Ar.  xi\tbx  nmoi  Br  ••bin 

mnen  So  edd.  min»n  man  ^n.          »  So  +  n«.         •  Ma  >  IBW. 
»o  Br  So  yi»»  map^.          "  So  msiapa.          »2  So  -j-nn.          «  So  n«i&in. 
30  H  Ma  nrfcsn.          «  Ma  >  mman)  So  nnwsi.  »«  I.  T.  >  Ar.  »ib«j?s« 

=  liT^ws.          »7  Br  So  mne«n.  i«  So  «a"».          '»  ib  . . .  »B3»  = 

Ar.  Vit»  "appetible".  «  p^ttt  =  Ar.  ^'l»  nso  "unwholesome,  and  harm- 
ful". Ma  1^  pno.  21  So  namm.  22  So  +  bw  Vw.  23  Ma  > 
«in.  2*  So  TI  for  o^n  ton.  '»  So  nenaa.  z«  Va«'»a  for  Ar.  Nns 
35  ^it»n  "when  he  takes  or  reaches  for".  27  Ma  ™arg.  n»  ^Wtsn . . .  na!?. 
28  Ma  >  nt.  29  Ma  any  ba«.  So  rv^an.  so  Br  n^Vnn  p  So 
at  Ma  >  nn«n.  32  Ma  >  n«in.  33  So 


no  'BD  5njnn          o  wei  niro 

pnsa 


man 


nnan 
pten  p  -maty  nj;  na   2'n«inn  «  inira  t«  rrnn  «  »pnn  nt  "jyi     10 


inwn  nahrw  35I1DD  34ni«iB"in  noan  pi 


1  Ar.  ij^isn  'S.    uiy0  "to  turn,  change  direction" ;  Lane  "employ",  Poc. 
dirigendis,  Wo.,  Ho.,  Richtung,  but  here  rather  "employ,  make  use  of,  as  15 
I.  T.       2  I.  T.  -j-  mn3«  onnn.       3  Ma  m«.       4  Ar.  mino*  "subjugate". 
Br  TMW  So  Tin*  Mi.    Edd.  napKr^,  sAo/e^  of  nay,  "subject,  subjugate". 
»  So  nunn.  «  Ma  "as^».          '  Ma  n1*^  Rim.  »  Ma  So  -f-  Ten; 

Poc.  +  semper.       9  Ar.  b'n  w  n^«  Ma  n11  Kinn.       "  So  >  V'l.       »»  Ma 

So  WI»D1.  u  Ma  So  n»^.  •'  Ma  W\  »*  Ma  ni^PBts.  20 

I.  T.  >  Ar.  nin.  is  Ma  SO\  i'  Ma  m.  i»  Ma  So  WwnW31. 

So  mtnaa.       20  Br  So  D'a^an.        ^  Br  >  nupi  So  nwpV.       2J  Ar.  ^ 
So  niosnn.  23  Ma  >  niapi.  2*  Ma  w^ern.  '*  Ma 

26  Ma  mi.  27  Ma  n«an^.  »»  Ma  nnwm.  29  go 

rwnann.  so  Ma  >  ,T,T.          si  yv  vbz  ==  Ar.  ma  "hateful,  disliked".  25 

Ma  +  Kb.         32  Ma  pa.         ss  Ma  -f-  «"?«.          3*  So  niOB-in.         ss  ^3 
for  Ar.  ]«  ^ro,  I.  T.  evidently  having  correctly  read  \o  instead  of  |K. 


29  n  piB  D' 


n'n  &     -pan*  imioyan  unaNBn  as»n  iwpaa  w     DVD  atww  jnv 
,2pyn  nta  v6«  naia  DJOP  TV  ats6  titrco  *6   IWIJKI  ,ojna 

:  SDTJD  n«i  ,myn  n«  n^p^ni  ntson  n«  np 
«  nowity  rrnnn  ^BDO  pso  liinn  V2«  ny^n  raioo  ii«ss  mm 

5 


Ton  VWVB     w  Diwn  nwao   8<|D 


inn 

10  invws2  n«m  nait  "vmmw  D»n    D  "now  v^y  nnDi  pyn  m 
•pi  D^  14*opn  h*  ,D\n^«  isy»^  ^«n«  -JTT  nan  io«i»  na"pn 
nn  UTWD  n»«  pyn  inn  ,«iaDm  nwn  «in  i«nowi  ,15>p 
nn  ^Tnsty  inw«"i»  no  -njw  nn  fnwa 


«  So  w«i.         i  I.  T.  >  aia  t6i.          3  Ma  >  DTM  . . .  jvp»m.          4  So 

15  Ma  nm.  *  Ar.  p»«%  imper.  "compare".  6  Ar.  nv.    So  TOJP. 

7  So  WI3  b«.          s  Ma  >  ^3.          9  Ar.  m»  KD  ^KJ^I  "and  lie  will  procure 

what  is  with  Him".         »o  Ma  n^oan  So  +  In.         "  Br  >  110«1.         «  So 

+  (Mi  oa)  'nn  rriwoi.         13  Ma  nj?iBr«2.         i*  Thus  Ar.    Br  Ma  So  npn. 

is  Mss.  edd.  DPI  K|?K  DBn.  »•  Mas.  edd.  nowm  or  rm-wn.  "  Mi 

20 


piB  o-'pia  njustf  28 


2nimnBn  nnon  wy  n^?  D^  pi  ,irow  103  jnn  n^yo 
3iionpntp  103  To 
pimi  Kin  n33  noK  133 
,6)310  )ono  m^a»n  nityo^i  nnon 
K^>  naya  )n  "IOK  ,snain   nna  m 


cno 


s£5  nK  nnno  ntyK    >v  /aanipn    ^  owoKn  K?  )r  o»n  IK  TDK 
Kin  rry  "iKem  to  m  ,sniK  Dn^^p  K^  I»K  ^y  ,13nnno  '•oa  10 
Kim  nnan  "ni^yoe  n^yeo  15ni«pn  ]o  THK  ns^ 
;wi  onion  *o  iyoty  no«n  niitm  ns1?  nw 
)s«ty  oipon  ^KT»S  my  ^  oyo  imaa  DTK 
Do  o»n  Wn  Kin  Kinn  »^n  "pa  ma 

mn  n^iyn  "nn^n  ^>K  nnn  y^nb  D^JJB  vm  22ono^  21vn  nmoi  15 
,i:iK3tr  IOD  ,jnn  ni^iyso  Kim  oyan  24i^y 
nnno  ™\*W*  nex  ^  '^Bin  nuDno  njn 
^o  ny  vto\  2'D^ao  ay  we  mn  K^  Kim  , 
nrwi  nm»ia»  naapn»  ns»iK  ny 

y*  IK  TDKV  no  hy\  ,nsoDnn  **raw  103  nia  2o 
32mo  nimns  i*?  )^K  31n"y 


i  Mi  VUBD.  2  Ma  nwn&n.  3  So 

«  AT.  y«p3  ]KD3«W  p"1  ]«  12  «V  n«  "since  necessarily  man  has  vices". 

KS&V  Br  on  marg.  later  hand.         »  plO  ]01tO  =  Ar.  «n»fi;  So  ]31D  pa  Mi 

7  Mi  nsoa.          8  ^>«p  ^^^  «n"B  vo  nps  «'33«^«  ana  «e«  "as  35 
to   the   books  of  the  prophets  they  say  much  in  them  concerning  this". 
9  I.  T.  -f  rtinn  DV  vas^oai.         »o  Ar.  noi.        "  Ma  +  owaan.       "  So 

>  -O3.       13  I.  T.  4-  narws  naa  ^  n«.       >*  Ar.  naini  nbo  «in;  So  wen  i!?3  nt 
V1B1.        »  Ar,  dual.        t«  Ar.  ^«iB^8  p  H^B  p.  Br  Ma  >  r6»t£>  So  nto»D^. 

"  o»n  l^p  p^p^  =  Ar.  rrV»  nbb«  npj,  "God  blamed  him".    Cf.  infra,  c.  VIII,  30 
p.  49,  n.  29,  and  p.  55,  n.  10.  is  Ma  DM.  »»  p3  =  Ar.  pn  'B 

"with  regard  to",   Friedlaender,  Selections,  p.  113,  note   to  p.  51,  line  3. 
So  »inn  isr-to  for  «inn  »s»n  pa.  20  So  vninantsi  vm^j?Bia».  '»  So 

>  vn  rna-roi.  22  Ar.  'a  nnp«  "imitate".  "  Ma  m»rg.  nn^>sn. 

2*  Ma  >  vto.    So  13.         >s  Ma  +  13.         >«  Ar.  '3,  Mss.  edd.  'B.        27  Ar.  35 
DKW  "laymen,  common  people".          28  on!?  n^SB  *6  ]»  «^1  "and  those  who 
did  not  possess  virtues".  29  So  invottf.  30  Ma  Mi  NB».          31  Br 

3»  Ar.  pbb  n!?n->  rrt  p  in  «D.    So  rtv.  33  Ma  So 


27  T  p^B  Q'pns 


nspn  p  pwn  2p  VJKI  ,n»ian  Mian  ijpani  nnyn  won 
3  lion  -nan  *6  /w  irvny  n«  roam  rrain  new  nanan  an  V'n  ;nn«n 
/jraoNn  TYIS  *nKaw  p  DJ  nanan  an  men?  ny  /w 
lea  ,Dnann  »£K  ty  *pmnV  ^man  pao 
p  IDW»  ne  ^y 

3  ]w  ,ni^yan  p 

nanp  rrrp  "n^vn  ^1  nwipnn  »^jn  snip^n  p 
p  KJPI  «^n«n  nspn  ^«  jrm  jns  Xs?  «im 
«Vsi  inr  ^a   snv»ty  K^   13iai  pyn  ma 
10  D»SV  ^»y  ts^apen  nina  nan  omi»  y^nn  pnsja  «anv»  ^ai 
"•n^K  ai  ,jiB6n  ma  DBT  n»«  ,nmo«  «pya  nwy^  ny  D^nii 
IDIK  nnK»  K^K  is.Tnnn  17>]^  mofctt?  "HD  7^  K^  prer  ^n 
nwa  2°irot  T»K  v^vn  19Kin  nn  ,tnnK  nnan 

jpnon 

15  m^yan  ^K  pa^  7*017  plan  ma  vnyiarc  no  ^ao  aiiKann  mn 
nKisnn  ns  by  vb*  ^rmspn  p  nsp  ^K  JHD  « 


y  ptnnn!? 

vrbn  2<riaK»  ia«ty  yrwai  ,n^ana  npm 
20  is  ,«inn  25na«n  »msw  ny  i 
Ten  wne  "nan?  27^  71*  2enn  nn«n  p  , 

no  ^ai  ;DV  DV  wei  niian  pna^i  vn^iya  ^p 
nynn  miann  n-^  K^I  nKWia  nn»s  m«pn  p 


>  Ma  nmni  Br  rim.  a  So  ^.          3  Br  Ma  nwn  So  "is 

25  B-K.  4  So  l«ttni.  s  Ma  lb«3..  *  Ma  11D«.  '  Ma 

4-  "io«i».  s  Br  So  to;  Ma  mpix.  9  So  wp5»n  toi  menpnn  hv. 

10  Ma  pwr  ^jn.  «  Ma  nn  nw»o  Mi  mwo.  12  Ma  insn. 

»*  Ma  >  in.  »*  Ma  Kin.  »  Ar.  na»  "like  the  appearance 

of,  similar  to,  a  sort  of".    Ma  p».        i«a  Some  edd.  'fi*i.        1 6  Ma  So  naa. 

30  IT  Ma  So  >  ih.          is  Ma  So  mm.          is  So  >  «m.           20  Br  So  irottf. 

21  Br  So  +  "ft.  22  Ar.  dual.  ss  ^>«  T«95r»  ==  Ar.  ^«  i«nrr. 

24  Ar.  ntsoi  «UJ?K  p  ==  isii  na«D.          S5  Ma  -OK&.  26  obwn  m«n  •= 

Ar.  ^D«D^>«  ]KD3N^«.    "Wo.,  der  Mensch,  wie  er  sein  soil.    In  support  of  this 

translation,  Wolff  (p.  29,  n.  1)  says,  So  ist  hier  wohl  sinngemaJS  ^^^  zu 

35  nehmen;  "vollkommen"  ware  unpassend,  da  "Vollkommenheit"  (im  Denken 

und  Handeln)  ja  erst  erstrebt  werden  soil".    But  Munk,  Guide,  I,  77  )«D3« 

be«D  =  homme  parfait.  "  Ma  >  ^.  "  Ar.  "Hi  «»  !?3B  "as  soon 

as  he  sees".  29  Ma  nwp. 


pis  DspiB  nutstp  26 


nn&no  ini«  awiyt?  no  ansny  w^  &w  ,ana  DM  ^  nano 
i7w  ••ID  ,  train  rv\roh  i\chn  TTT  ty  «^«  arwviKan  piBBi 
nvw  ww  pnsn  nta  2inNat?  no  <sa  ayo  insn  nsn  ^« 
no  matt  «^>  minnt?  Kim  ,"wa«  TOO  8ono  niyta  int  ,p 

na  Vi  na*an  n«t  ^BD  «•?«  rvmsv  no  nnns  «^i  ITIDKBP  5 
te«en  iiotw  f*fcnnn  *w  ^  "inv  nn«n  nsn  p 
noi  nahpn  by  nnnwm  ,nmo«n  «n 
o«n  ~^K  ^sD^^  nnmo  ny«  nt  b 
103  ara  imyioi  ^awon  oyo^  "wnnin  SODH  nw  m  ta  njn 
nwnn  an  nspo  "pninn^  a»n  inra  Dio«  ^ia  12nti  ,pinioa  10 
ny  tsyo  n«inn  rwsvi  mj^n  TS  •?«  ywon  p  n«j6i  ^ni  pnn 
:nnvnn  nii^n  i^nwaaa  "pmnw 
,nna»m  ,&p^m  ,nn»yen  15ni^nio  mina»  no  to  pi 
anp    D  nt  ,n»no  n-npt»m  ,^aw  ^anaBf  pi  ,16rMiyni  ^nsm 
2<>pnn  n^ain  rwpo  ™pn~bv  TV  "^  ai»  »p*uvo  15 


nina  24nia"ioi  nnoo  pty  DD  o«son  nisen  an 
aipn  «^>  nowa  Bin  r6i«ai  ,25nTtDim  ,nospin  ITIBK»  102 
pi  ,«nm  Byan  na  vfcrvv  TV  ,Bpn  apn  ,airvn  airv  ,n*^ 
n-nm  ,aipn  nan?  ••iso  pi  ,ni^an  mian  TiBnt?  nv  ,aa^n  20 

«  naa  ;w  |pt 


Dessau,   1809;    Groningen,    1845;    Lemberg,    1876,   have   nJ5K2,   with   note 
endeavoring  to  explain  the  passage. 

i  Ar.  bns«  =  inv  owa.          2  Br  >  no.    So  u-oi.          »  Ma  WSJB  ww. 
*  Ar.  iTiH^K  nni  ^P  "by  means  of  the  practice  of  good  works  and  prayers".  25 
5  So  o^awan.          6  Ma  mbwsn.  '  7n»n»  msi  =  Ar.  ij^sw  "trouble, 

fuss,  ceremony".     Ma  -p!ttn»  ntil.  6  Thus  Ar.;  Mss.  n»K  TOVO  or 

•WK  nwro.    Mi  n»«  roiroa.         »  Edd.  nwipi  nwx  (or  rains)  nuiro  7ns». 
>o  Thus  Ar.;  Mss.  and  edd.  nttjn.  "  lyniin  ^tsan  =  Ar.  «33«^«;  Ma 

So  'in.  1J  Br  Ma  m.  "  (D  pninn!?  own  inw  =  Ar.  nsis«  30 

^K  "God  prescribed  it  in  order  that  we  should  go  away  from". 
Ma  >  tam.    WW  (Ma)  ==  rtSlB«  Br  So  liW.    "We  expect  prnnitf  instead  of 
«*  ptnm  aar^nnw  n»  =  Ar.  rarir.  "nn  So  a^nnnv  Mi  rrnra. 

Edd.  wnaa.  »«  Mi  nMw  BIBI.    Mi  mWw.  »  ra  anp  =  Ar. 

anp.    Edd.  |nn»a.  i»  Ma  na^.  19  Ma  pmw».          20  So  pwi.  35 

Thus  Ma.  Br  So  rrap^,  see  supra,  n.  17.        22  Ma  naiann.        23  Br  ]ha. 

m^iiei  mnfi^b  |rw  =  Ar.  m*n  np.    See  st*pm,  n.  4.        25  rrvwm 

Ar.  DHpnwbH.          s«  Br  lain  ^ae.    So  ^aa. 


25  T  pis  O'pns  naie» 

no  ^a«s  ,2rpy»D«n 
Troop  no 


ronis6 


nana 
no  nntw  ,wa 


nto  rrvnrm  ,»IBU  niyn?  *i  sTosm  Tya»n  pat?  *i  ,nnnai 
5  now  ,a>wn  ty  N&n  TBWD  12vty  TBSI  Tm  HTD«  ^nbapa  Nap  no 


IDS 


:noai  nea  firm 


no 


n« 


10 


nt  ^n^y  ity«a  inn  ^onn  tyina  naa«n 
own  na»  a^aty  nt  T^^ai  ^ona  TIDDI  anos 
27p  nn«  ,o^nwn  nn«i  n^ai«n  nn« 
15  -iBK1?  m«as  «  noK  na 
na  p 


ni  nowm  D^aito  o^jno^i 


20  vbvn  nvT  nna  I^K  nnon  mtyo  nn 


nn  3ono«{y  jrn 
,^i»n  pnsa 


i  Ar.  KT3&  "by  nature".  2  So  mttOMn  Ma  wtJ«n.  »  ib  nwtsw  no 
=  Ar.  n^  NO.  *  Ma  >  ^irca  hvt^h  .  .  .  nnwi.  »  So  mvnoa.  6  a  of 

25  WTO  =  "practising"  or  "seeking".  nilfiNI  ==  Ar.  *)K5»NbM  "and  justice". 
Ma  naiDKa  So  rui&Nai.  7  Ar.  «|ina^K  "caves".  s  So  -vvm  itssn. 

•  Ar.  ransn  DD^K  '•pW  ]«  «^1  "and  that  he  should  not  reduce  his  body  to 
destitution  nor  torture  it".  K>  Ar.  ^pi^N  tOKi  «02  "according  to  that 

which  tradition  brings  to  us".  "  Mi  1BK1.  12  I.  T.  >  ]ron. 

30  13  I-  T.  +  !?"».  So  V'n.  Br  >  "01.  «4  Br  Ma  >  rn.  So  «b«  for  to. 

»  So  4-  n-iBD  -pi*.  '6  Br  "»  ntn  Ma  •'D  no  So  nt  noi.  «  Ma  Mi 

nani.  is  lymin  ••osm  =  Ar.  «anjn»  n«ini  "and  those  who  handed  down 
our  Law".  »  Mi  vn».  'o  Mi  ^y.  21  Ma  2«nn».  "  Mss. 

and  edd.  cb\B  but  Ar.  n«»^«  'B  =  nam  "a  year".  Error  goes  back  evi- 

35  dently  to  I.  T.,  who  must  have  read  D!?«P  "Q  or  D^«JJ^>K  SB  =  D^M.        J3  So 

>  i^j).  2*  Mi  u6.  "  So  »'aan  iiT-otb  -no«  «im.  26  Mi  '3. 
"  Mi  ^^  inw.           2*  iwra  =  Ar.  b«nn»«V«a  =  rather,  'IIBD.          "  Ma 

>  nitox.  so  Ar.  noun  ]«.  »»  Ar.  bbo^«i;  Wa  =  "people,  nations". 
Ma  maiOK3.     Edd.  Basel,  1804,  and  Slutcki  have  correct  reading.     Edd. 


n  piB  D"pn&  naiot?  24 


vna  p     i  ,ia*naya  Drrnno  IDBHO  nns^  ny 

,iT'y   rPBV    4«^MH    31BNDD   JH   BIN   B 


n  rh*  wy  a^Tanrw  'a^aan  iNn  "IP*OI  ,«an:na  rmy 
,8amaa  vim  aatwia  antot  unai  maia  ant?  ia»n  ,nw^iD  ijn^  5 

moi  n^»yo  DOSV^»  wp  orw 
12  rani  *jun  ww  n»n  ^to  ,11DB6  m«n 

n^iycn  I^MBP  ^T  «^  nm  , 


DO  m»  nnaii     nin  ipt?nt?     n^«Bnn      os«^a  10 
23^^^  ,^2  22^iiepD«i  ,21nwnp^p  tj 
won  p  wteii  n^no  weinai  p»n  one  ipoei 


anw  nnp^  ^nnni  ,na  ww 
^in  nn  i^«  p  ,pso  «^»a  n^n 

:w^"on  hy  n«is"in  anp^a  pso  «?a  nwcan  is 
V><1  nnin  ,31n^iis  rr^y  Tyn»  loa  iini«  aonD^on  nonsnn  mwn  n«n 
fnre  nan  mai  ^sb  ,SHB  naono  nia«i  VI<|  nny  , 


,  ^ 

Ar.  ]«i  nn?Kj>B«  rrni 

Dnp«S2«  "l«D&  «iTB  ]WpW  «Ofi  Dnmw  "when  they  saw  that  by  associating 
with  them  and  witnessing  their  deeds  they  might  become  perverted,  and 
that  by  having  social  intercourse  with  them  they  feared  their  morals  might  20 
become  corrupt".  2  Br  So  or6.  s  Ma  >  jn;  108153  for  1DK&3. 

*  So  >  train.        »  Mi  nanm        *  Mss.  edd.  +  nnan  . . .  aww.         •  So 
o^oan.    I.  T.  >  Ar.  7«^«  =  r6«n.  8  I.  T.  >  Ar.  KiVs;ii  =  i^nnm. 

»  So  row  nro»  Ma  naie.         10  Ma  +  nan.         »  Ma  own  b«.         «2  Ma 
So  rram  »  na«^  =  Ar.  ns«!?ni  na«^n  "its  perdition  and  destruction".  25 

i*  Br  So  vi.       »  Ma  DM  '3.      16  So  nwenn.      "  Edd.  D'MBnnfi.      «  Br  > 
»»  So  D^Mipin  DSOD.  so  Br  biBin  on»  So  Ma  town  onw. 

Ma  n-norpibip  So  «r«wip^p.         «  Ma  M^fipom  So  nM^«Bp»Mi.        ™  Ma 
»*  Ma  la^M  Min»  lasm.          2»  M.  mentions  three  purgatives, 

Dn»  "juice  of  the  colocynth,  scammony,  and  aloe".  30 
He   mentions  colocynth  and  scammony  in  a  letter;   see  Ker.  Hem.,  Ill, 
p.  16.     Of.   Mittot   ha-ffiggayon,    C.  VIII   (ed.  Slucki,    p.  41): 
\Vfth  M^lfip»Mn.     See  Ro.,  p.  88,  n.  3;  "Wo.,  p.  23,  n.  1.  26  n 

mifii  "a  complete  relief"  =  Ar.  KD^'ay  «S«^3  "by  a  wonderful  salvation". 
27  Br  D'Vinn  D'KB"i&.        28  p»  !?3  "so  much  the  more"  =  Ar.  -njM^Mi  nnK^Mas  35 
quanta  magis.  J9  n^rr  «w»  . . .  ^nnm  "and  if ...  then".  so  Mi 

Ar.  «nBi«».    Ma  rn\          **  Ma  vtn. 


23  npi 

Kbi  Ynv  Kbi   iamby  iip^i  nian^n  mbiys 

nerv 

Kb  baK  ,4ani}&>bi  nib'sn  nibiyB  3nwyb  miss  IIBD  2inKiit?a  pi 
Kin  7ai&n  t?nnn  «rm  ,"iitsn  byis  *iniia»a  man  a^ys  nib"on  byis  man 
5  invi  bp  inr  ma-nab  nitfin  p  ami  «awt?  Kim  ,miai  nKiBin 
-inn  rwonn  ntmn  viya  aw  pi  ,i 
by  ^isai  nt^i  ,nno  nuKnn  tya  awo 
na>jnnn  "nya  by  ^iBai^»  nnv  nKini 
"HBB  "inv  ^miaab  iDsy  nTD»  aa^n  "p  by  a^mi  ,niKnn 

nKiBi  ma  int  ,  nbaia  aie  ab  jm  ib  »w  ^B  ^iiaanD  18inv  aabn 

tvnan  nnon 

j«on  TIT  by  nann  IK  wn  nsb  eye  BstDia  w  IK  ,nwa  nysioan 
15  rwivi  myn  nsb  niTntn  )a  a^ii  ww  ba>a  TTI  ' 
ai»»i  ,»y»  24maaaa  icsy  nTao  isb  nniain 
pi  oyo  nnn  mbsty  isb  niiyn  |oi  aya  aabn  ai& 

Di  ana  a^iK  nspi  "a^etn  nspa  an^ann  26om«  wy 
20  "wa  nb^K  nnim  ^onib^ba  aipi  ,29auo  2sinKn  nspn  IHK  niwo  p 

nte  nan  wy  Kb  nnaifca  nnianm 

uni_n—  a  icsj       tjiit/   its  i  t/j    jj    uj    iu  iui      t/jn  — < 

»  Mi  rrby.    I.  T.  >  Ar.  MOOT  =  Ttsn.        2  Br  Ma  ntnaiw.        3  Ma  by. 

25  4  So  nrtt»fo.  s  Ma  >  noi;  wiawa  for  imiBO.  6  Ma  m.  7  umnn 
31tn  =  Ar.  HroJ^K.  Lane,  "a  nice,  subtile  saying";  Wo.  eine  feine  Be- 
merkung,  eine  Subtilitat.  BTnn,  "a  novel  interpretation  or  idea".  "The  Win 
=  novelty,  was  some  new  thought  on  religious  topics,  or  some  ingenious 
explanation  of  a  Biblical  difficulty",  Abrahams,  Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle 

30  Ages,  p.  132,  n.  5.  8  Ar.  yilNp  =  icdvw,  Dozy,  regie,  reglement.  9  Br 
So  y\mt  tnni  Ma  aittrwa  rm.  10  So  +  21^.  i»  Ma  np.  1J  So 
mwnn.  ts  Ma  >  n6w&.  >*  So  naso^.  i»  Ma  >  neo  inv. 

»«  Ma  iDia  !?»  ymi.  "  Mi  niaaon  ntsa.  »«  Ma  >  inv.  >«  Mi 
y».  »o  Ma  niwsja.  »i  Mi  niian.  22  Ma  m'Btfl.  23  Ma 

35  p  pi  nwann  niwi'in.  2*  Ma  nysob  DBS»  So  niasoa  I»BI  Mi  nasoa  wsa. 

25  So  +  n»r»a.  26  Ma  ww.  27  So  -f-  niBipen  nvpi.  "  Br  So 
innn.  29  Ma  So  DIM.  3»  Ma  nWa  Dipai.  So  -f  ">»«  «nn  rnirr) 

IWK  nwj>?  n^T.  "  Ma  >  nwrnyi.  Ma  ]wm  So  ps.  3Z  So  1121301. 

«  So  >  13131W  1B3.  s«  Ar.  n8DB^«1  "and  the  corruption  of.  35  Ma  D». 


pis  D'pns  nai»»  22 


p  a:  •DEW  niyan  p  pan  m  tyi  ,»mn  KT  iwto  inn  «vw 
nn 


jrn      5 
m^ytn  ^IB 
nnn  niyen  vn  D«I 


am 
iT  «im  /MMWI  piss  "inaity  102  ,]non  ^>yi  «^  ,n^D  ^n  iriy 

,16isn«  ^i«i  vanp  "inao  SSD  iniiBpD  ni^vs  p£5D  161  10 
IBS  ^snnana  w  "niTnia  vrw  WB«I  ,WJ»IBB  ann 
2°"p-n 


^B^^  p  ia^T  p^Di  zsnwn^ai  ,w»n  •?« 

p  ,nv»  ^  inrBjr^  nB  2*i^  nwj6  15 


jnn  niyBB  in»r  *w«    visni  »Bin  nvn^nso  nwnB  mi 

wi  «^»  ,^inn  m  ni«Bi^  -'  mnayai  ^pifin  nn 
nwn  jwi»n  nma  ainn  v^>y  29i2aty  se  «B^»  28s» 
^B^I  ,ays  SO^K  Dj?«5  I»B^  in«^itr  ^ns  fci»  ,vbn»  in«nns  20 
,m^D^>  ns^non  m»nn  WBAB  iiaw  ny  n 
32rn^ys   IIBB   p^ai   mi   ^iiitsn    naian 


«  Br  So  rwu.  >  Mi  -nts».  3  Ma  >  aaVn  3i»  p-vn.  *  Ma 

marg.  -p^j  mM  for  m^.  s  g0  w3^.  «  Ma  >  0^3.  '  AT. 

9&  • 

ma  =  ntn  man  to.          •  So  -J-  «^>.         »  Br  »BJ^.         »o  So  25 
11  Ma  +  ma.    So  ^Jim  Mi  ^iiDl  corrected  to  ^iini.          »2  Ma 
Mi  -j-  ono.          '3  Mi  >  iri.    So  +  one.    Mi  mwg-  rion  w»i  vn  D«I  n^jfi 
nn».          »*  Ma  +  n^nna.          «  Br  manaa.          i»  Ma  nnp.    isn»  s»aw 
=  Ar.  in^ai.    Mi  ran  vwaw,  but  corrected.          »  Mi  rovnns.  »s  Mi 

nnoinfi.  i»  Ma  i«m.  "  So  7113.          2»  Ma  «s>i.          »  -nwai  30 

naas  =  Ar.  ntaKpas.  13  Ma  nan^wsi  So  nwer»3i.  "  ih  nwsb  ai»a^ 
=  Ar.  nn^a«pa  sto  «a»a*"rt  "and  we  have  recourse  to  its  opposite".  J5  Ma 
rwn.  as  Mi  nom.  v  i»sa  ia  inn^  =  Ar.  nosa  *hy  «na  nnp*  "be- 

cause of  which  he  gives  bare  sustenance  to  his  soul".  28  Mi  103. 

"  Ma  •oa'ff.  so  Br  nnK.  3t  Thus  Ma,  paraphrasing  the  Ar.  35 

NruiKp11  w  I«n3«b«  n«M  nV  ^$nn  ^«  n»3l  "until  he  almost  assumes  the 
disposition  of  prodigality  or  approaches  it".  31  n^1J>B  .  .  .  <W  =»  Ar. 

n:»  ps-ia  raw.   Br  So  nfcwea  IT    bo11  mi  Ma  w^wane  p^no'  »KI  Mi 

IT 


21  n  pis  D^ 


nsn  IVKP  ^a  Kim  ni  n&n  Kin  baan  ,^se«n  Kim  ]vn  IK  pu  m 
nspn  Kim  ,p»a  K^I  rni&  K!?I  jnon  ia  2v«»  naa  ib'BK  nana  DIK  ' 

DK  I^BKI  ,aita  a^a  nnawn  d'nain  mnyv  Kin  aa^n  2113  pirn  ,pnnKn 

nspn   'Kini  ,nan&   6noan  IK  an   mio  IK   5jm  IK  bni  p»a 
5  jraiaa  sa^B  n»m  ,nm  nnn  nty^nn  myni  oyan  p 


Kin  D^B  wy\  trxra  an 
pi  ,16p 


10  nirepn  2onn«  i2tynsi  /snivsn  12  m«  »s^a  i^  D^J?B  mini 

nspn  latyn-1  zinnspc  ,»Bin  ni^VDo  ntyai  nib 
onoion  i«npsi  ,n^»v»  niiao^  mean 
'i  men  n« 


is  «vw  27u>Bin  runs  by  ino«si  aie  «vw  frown  nspn 


i  Mi  >  stt.  2  Mi  +  1^.  3  Mi 

*  Ma  ona.          »  Ma  >  ]ina.  B  Mi 

7  Mi  Kint.  s  See  p.  20  n.  2.  9  Mi  ntfiani.  »o  Mi  -f-  "h. 

20      11  Mi  D^K  Kin  itsnatf.  "  Mi  DifiKDD.  »  Br  ^•'lan  Mi 

14  Mi  ]Br«ian.         is  Mi  >  pj>  p!?.          16  The  gloss  p  n^nmo  nt^i 
is  not  found  in  Ma.    The  use  of  the  first  person  in  the  last  phrase  seems 
to  show,  however,  that  it  originated  with  I.  T.          i7  mana  ...  pi  =  Ar. 
nfcmn  -OKKjns  ^>K  naKa  KIK  nSns  Kn^»  n»iiio  KDDK  ^K  JKnnn  K^I  «n^«o  i^iai 

25  HfiinBts.  Cod  327  (Parma)  has  the  correct  reading.  The  word  K^,  necessary 
according  to  Ar.  and  the  sense  of  passage,  is  missing  in  all  Mss.,  more 
than  thirty  of  which  were  examined,  except  in  cod.  327  (Parma).  Ma  codd. 
71  269  1212  Harl.  5686  (Br.  Mus.)  have  1^K  or  n^K,  cod.  (Parma)  438 
miti  l!?K,  which  probably  go  back  to  an  original  K^.  Rosin  (Ethik,  p.  81, 

30  n.  4)  properly  suggests  the  reading  K^.  Br  Mi  codd.  (Parma)  802  959 
1246:  (Mi  vrw)  v,Ttw  nissona  onb  DTUIO  mnB6  D^B  hi  hv  irntw  nnaniKtfpi 
•ai  D^CSBI  (Mi  niana)  nain  awaits  D^"3»n.  nisaon  or  noaona  is  found  in  Br  Mi 
codd.  46  802  959  1161  1246  1262  etc.  Correct  reading  mana  (Ar.  rhr«)  in 
Ma  Mi  codd.  71  269  327  438  1212  Harl.  5686.  is  Mi  »»B.  i»  Mi 

35  nnon.  20  Mi  IHK.  21  Ma  So  D-WBI.  22  nmcb  .  .  .  n^ana  == 

Ar.  n^Knis^K  ^»  DipbKi  iinn^K  nw  •'B.  23  Ma  >  itssy  .  .  .  maao^.  2*  Ar. 
nDBJa.  25  Ma  ^VW.  26  So  +  Vhv.  27  \y^n  nins  "coward"  for  Ar. 
DBi^K  yn&^K,  but  rather  "the  apathetic,  or  phlegmatic  in  spirit",  as  above, 

h'jKn&^Ki  =  tiai  nain  wmn  m»m.  23  Ma  Vsr.  29  Ma  ntwin 

40 


n  pnB  D'p-iB  mi&»  20 

narw  p  yjntjo  mpsnonm  ,nnn  rotean  mwn  p  nysiaa 
IB  jvwi  ntean  p 

ia  D'xm  nai  D\MJ>  BHB^  T 
baa   *inxjn  lao&ai  ism  DIN  ^ab  a'er6  iruua  !?a»  "a  amp  aits 


nDN1B!?Nl  Hj>N^N  p  "and  wit  is  the  mean  between  buffoonery  and  clownish-    5 
ness",  evidently  going  back  to  the  Aristotelian  mean  e&rpsnre\la  "wit,  liveli- 
ness", and  the  extremes  /Jw/xoXox^a  "buffoonery,  ribaldry",  and  iypouda.  "boor- 
ishness,  coarseness"  (Eth.  Nic.  II.  7);   Poc.  Urbanitas  inter  scurrilitatem 
et  rusticitatem.    See  Ro.,  p.  80.  n.  3.    blD^D  "loftiness,  distinction"  ;  Prov. 
IV.  8,  n^D  "esteem  highly,  prize  her"  (Toy);   Yer.  Bikkurim,  I,  64aD^nai  10 
px»a  ho»  WO;  Kiddushin  78b,  Bekorot  30b  ps»3  !?1D^D  D'ina  D-'ima,  "the 
priests  guarded  their  dignity11. 

I.  T.'s  rendering  of  the  Ar.  "and  dignity  is  the  mean  between  haughti- 
ness and  loutishness"  is  not  exact.    A  number  of  Mss.  have  an  explanatory 
gloss,  not  by  I  T.,  but  neither  is  this  in  accord  with  the  Ar.    Br  So  Mi  15 
codd.  (Parma)   46    378  802  959   1161    1246  1262  +  Kin  ^tf>D   (Mi  "B1)   "B 
Mi  u-w)  WK  (802  959  1262  1161  1246  Mi  itna)  iton  naanDtf  (1262  Kin  *ti)  v 
1262  wwannn)  nuwinn,  (46  1262  +  nwa)  (Mi  ira)  0^1212  bainia  (46  1262, 
iV  ^iK-in  ]t3  inv  (46  1262  om.  Mi  m«n)  DIN  laarPBO  «in  (Mi  niK»mnm  802 
nm  tr»  Q-'iiin  ^nte  n^»o  (46  nw»  m«)  on«  rwmr  «im  n»iT  ntaam  20 
nain    nwns.    Harl.  5686   omits   this   gloss,  but  after  roNBttnnn  has 


Br  Mi  codd.  46  802  959  1161  1246  1262  etc.,  have  an  additional  virtue 
man  pi  ninispm  iin&pn  p  jraion  nmni,  and  have  also  an  explanatory 
gloss:  802  1161  tnViB  1262  trs^ifi  Br  n^iD)  n'^ia  »6a  pip^  no  x>aun  niaia  Vn  25 
Him  lite  ipi  vrae  nn'aab  nw»ts  «^»ai  (Mi  man)  nan  «^a  «in»  ••a  Kim  (959  tr6&iK 
im  mm  (Mi  wao)  o^ats  nrrna  Ka'»  iintspn  nwa.    rnVie  is  the  old  Spanish 
mollidura,   Lat.   mollitudo   "tenderness,   softness".     Some   Mss.   have   the 
additional  virtue  nmm,  but  not  the  gloss.     Rosin  (p.  31,  n.  2,  and  p.  80, 
n.  4)   is   of  the  opinion  that  I.  T.  translated  here  from  an  Arabic  text  30 
which   differed   from  the  Pococke  text.     He  attributes  the  virtue   JVUm, 
which  is  not  in  the  Pococke  text,  to  I.  T.,  but  not  the  explanatory  gloss. 
Since,  however,  there  are  a  number  of  reliable  Mss.  (among  them  Ma  codd. 
(Parma)  327  71  438  269)  which  do  not  contain  this  virtue,  it  may  be  concluded 
that  it  was  added  to  the  I.  T.  version,  and  that  I.  T.  did  not  have  before  35 
him  a  text  varying  from  that  of  Pococke.    See  supra,  Introduction,  p.  23. 

1  Mi  nfcwm  ..  ni3J?m  misplaced  after  ]lPKin  mipn  mt  nailtt  IDBn,  p.  21,  line  4. 

2  According  to   Ar.,  aa^  31B  .  .  .  a^  aitsi   should  come  before  nipBDOnm. 
The  virtue  aS  aiB  is  entirely  missing  from  Br  codd.  (Parma)  46  1161  1246 
1262.    The  gloss  ]l»Kin  .  .  .  n^xn  nno1?  ]W  ^BBI  is  found  in  all  Mss.  that  40 
have  aa"?  aiD,  as  Ma  Harl.  5686  (Brit.  Mus.)  codd.  (Parma)  71  269  327  438 
802  (on  marg.  by  same  hand)  959,   also  in   So  Mi   from  which  it  may  be 
concluded  that  it  originated  with  I.  T.        3  Mi  nnoa.        «  Ma  liOOl  W5W1. 
Mi 


rmxp  TO  pa  ayjnean  awwi  n^ynn  on  2Dt|^en 
nwan  p  «n£jmm  ,jnan  *;vawn  ,nteoin  «jno  nn«n  , 
,mon  srnnKni  rrvrv  JHD  nn«n  ,mjn  r.wan  TO  pa  a 
ma  NTO  nnvnn  ia  teem  ,ann  n^iysn  la^nrp  nton  nwann 
«\T  niTntni  ,»n«inn  n»iin  myn  pi  nwnn  an 
moo  a^nn11  •»«  BEM  ^nittni 
nspn  «in  nwnn  an 

jn  arri»i  ,)nn«n  nspn  «i 

10  naiann  «sm  ^'Wiinn  nyni  ,mwn  naonn  «^ni  ,m«nn  an 
:nnon  "wwnea  "wwne  IJT  ]iTnB»  , 
HTDDH  pa  nysifi»  iTiiaam  ,n^Bn^  ni^an  pa  VSIDO  nianin  pi 
pai  rwiwnnn  )^a  ysi»o  "^a^am  ,aa^n  71  pai 


i  So  nwBin  ^n  nmsna.    Cf.  Ro.  p.  79,  n.  1.         »  So  n'lia.         3  i. 
15  >  Ar.  twnsa  =  nn\  *  Mi  p.    Ma  +  wn.  *  Ma  ona 

6  Edd.  +  nn»n.  t  pp  "an  acquired  quality"  =  Ar.  rebo  "custom, 

habit".  s  Ma  edd.  m»m.  »  Ma  So  ntonn  »iin  Br  m«m 

»o  Edd.  waitan  for  mi.    Mi  nuorn.         "  nvion  ,  .  .  niTntni  =  Ar. 

•TP^'D  ii^B  vi  risatb»  Kr\w  nt!?n  sn^«  DBi^>«  p  n«\n!?«i  nKT3b»  'TWBK  p  \T  "and 

20  abstinence  belongs  to  the  good  deeds,  and  the  psychic  condition  from  which 

abstinence  necessarily  flows  is  a  moral  virtue".    Ma  nno  mbyfi  KVT. 

«  So  vxvi.          13  Ma  nwinn.    So  t?m.          "  So  TOTHB.          »»  Br 

nvninBD  Ma  rWVlBtt.         «  Mss.  and  edd.  depart  from  the  Ar.  from  ^ID^Dni 
p  J»S1D»  to  rrom  Dsi21t5  (see  i»/ra,  p.  21,  line  9),  each  Ms.  having  one  or 

25  more  glosses,  only  one  or  two  of  which  originated  with  I.  T.  Edd.  acces- 
sible to  editor  (Wien  1798,  Basel  1804,  Dessau  1809,  Groningen  1845,  Lem- 
berg  1876,  see  Introduction,  pp.  31  —  32)  except  ed.  Slucki,  contain  no  glosses, 
and  omit  the  phrase  ITDm  D'Jmo  .  .  .  tt1B2r  t6.  Ma  codd.  (Parma)  71  261 
269  327  438  1212,  etc.  mention  only  seven  virtues  (Ar.  has  eight)  besides 

30  nwnin,  omitting  the  virtues  toote  and  nm.  Br  codd.  (Parma)  46  1161  1246 
1262  omit  ^  21B1,  but  add.  nmm.  Mi  codd.  (Parma)  802  959  edd.  have  nine 
virtues:  ntrai  ,ro^>2W  ,&  a«si  ,mpBnonni  ,nu»ni  ,nnjm  ^ID^D.TI  ,mi3im  , 

ai  .  .  .  tooteni  =  Ar.  ooine 
b* 


a  pit  D- 
p  ,jna  awato  men  -nna^  men  BWBU 


18 


»rojnn  p  a  win  nwsan  wsn  2nn  TOK  lamm  iwv  ar6  "ps 
na  WBT  TON  «iD«tea  anw  INBYI  ,ma»  ]w  pa  n^rr  T»K  ann 

pisa  »ITOW  i»«  »Bin  nna 


jpso  *6a 


"minn  ana  maw  arwiwan  nn« 
S  wn»  V'i  ;w  T^K  sa^  nn 
nan  a^aia  DJW  ^  •]«  ,«as 


am 


nai 


nn 


anwa 
naa 


msoo 
«im  was  mn^  10 
nann 


is 


Ma  D»B3n.         J  So  nrw.          a  Ma  nwnn.          *  So  nsN^oa.         »  Ar. 
Ma         .    So  maw.          6  Mi  «anxi\          '  nbinn  .  .  .  omnN  =  Ar. 

.  .  .  omnK.          »  Ma 
Br  HOT.  »'  Ma  ^ov.  20 


13  Thus  Ma 


for 


s  Mi 
10  Mi  nmro  |na 


Ar. 


DHBS1B.     Br  DDHH 

oann 


n11??  no«  So  'ts«  n»"n»  new  "Qta  Mi  n»«  mwn  v>y  oann 
iTto  HP"n»  no«  -ima.    Vocalized  edd.  na^a  construed  with  D' 
So  n*yh.        »s  So  nann.        16  Ma  nan.        «  Mi  >  -pin 
is  Mi  >  IBP  .  .  .  ne«a.  i»  So  >  n^nn.          »»  So 

nro.          «  Br  > 


edd. 
'  Ma 


«in» 


So  +  25 


p  , 
i 
an 


15 


vb 


n»a  IBT  nivin  nnon 


nnp!? 


rn«na  *)U?  BW  103  rn  nwia 
jna  nt?ynt?  *roaian  rrp^n  n^am  «nnaian  rrnnt? 
niiaro  nnaian  rrnnt?  wn  ntom  ,  niton  sni^ysrn  »nman  »TBJI 
"WB«  ,niiUDn  ntojHjm  10rojnn  »T»n  jna  rwynv  waian  rrp^n 
5  nifiin  ^vw  ICDI  ,v^y  "iipnn  mwenn  12nD«^o  i^m  «jun-ni^"Q 
no  i48in»nB^  ,10  "wrwpwa  «vw  non  ^nm^in  nosn*?  IDT 
nanni  onwn  pmm  , 


10 


moai 


HBB 


i  So  ^ina.  2  Br  So  v  ^,  Ar.  osaW  iiDnpt*1?**  ^>«p.  3  Br  >  iea 

,  ,  .  "him;  Ma  er«  I»«D  =  wv  102.        «  Mi  warn        B  Mi  naian.        •  So 
inn.          7  now  =  Ar.  njoon^M  n«n^».  »  Ma  nAwan  i«.          »  Br 

Mi  Tnn.  10  nwin  =  Ar.  rwcbin  nn^K.          "  So  nafim.          »l  Mi 

20  n3«^tt3.         »3  Br  nrrrwjnn.         1*  Ma  >  tow.         18  So  and  edd.  «in»  n»3 
no  «inw  pwD  tnrw  nea^  pno  mnw  10.  >»  Ma  iKiro  So  nnwa  Mi  *pwa 

Mi  n»»rg.  attempts  to  correct.  "  Ma  ni«!?.  «  Ma  ^3  D^na^. 

i»  Ma  1J?S.        20  Ar.  a«nnb«l  dn&bw  ^Btt^K  "mud,  coal,  and  dust".        21  Ar 
flS1BJ>b«;  Br  DVBPn;    edd.  Basel,  Dessau,  Groningen,  Slucki,  Lemberg  have 

25  variant    D'EflBsn.     See   ed.    Slucki,   p.  6a,   n.  36;    and   Mil.   ha-Hig.,  ed. 
Slucki,  c.  VIII,  p.  41.  «  So  >  n«0.  23  Ar.  Y1B6«1.    Br  So  »in 

m«ni.  24  Thus  Br  cod.  73  (see  Ro.,  p.  30,  n.  4,  and  p.  77,  n.  8)  = 

Ar.  ntCNiVN  "aims,  purposes,  utmost  limits".    So  nuVfinS  Ma  ni^Bn/i.    Edd. 
+  nun  n^WB  or  nun.  25  Mi  "a'*,  edd.  -f  o'iBun.  J6  Br  >  an». 

30  So  H-  n^n  -jsna  mm.          27  Ma  o-'nan.          28  So 
b 


a  pis  D'pns  ruie»  16 


t  nra  *om   w  6«n  non   «m     nn  m 

n  'p^rn  ^« 

5 


nn  ]sw  ,«T»V       neTo  «m  w  woi  ^osi  w    12i«y      a  IK 
nn  16i"ot  lysity  no  m 


Ma  nn\    Br  en  ntn\  »  m»m  =  Ar.  n^n^tn  =  nii^ao,  in  c.  IV. 

Ar.  «i«w^»n  =  nu»,  in  c.  IV.  3  Ma  nvvwn.  «  Ma 

So  naunan.          5  I.  T.  adds  nJ1fi«,  and  Poc.  magnificentia.          «  1^«3  ion!?  10 
=  Ar.  rnn  ^  ensrtK.    Br  So  iV«D.  '  Ma  p^n.  s  Ma  So  io«\ 

9  Ma  So  nto&  «^.       10  im1'  ^j>  ]»  wnw  =  Ar.  neNpnoK  by  n«a  na«.       «  Ma 
-i^s  So  "i^u  BTH.  n  So  ite».  »»  nw  ^  none  «in  i«  =  Ar.  IN 

nONpflDN  ^9  n«j  in  "or  it  (the  imagination)  is  in  good  condition".    Ar.  in 
refers  to  an  antecedent  rp!?5n  "his  imagination",  and  is  not  "he"  as  Poc.  15 
translates.    Of.  Wo.  p.,  12,  n.  2.  »  So  >  1^3.  is  Ma 

IB  So  rato. 


16  a  pis  D'pis 

mna  nNt?a  p  ;w  no  2?wn  nya  wy  ^iBiom  jm  Vi  ,intan 
DJ  nan  ma 


njn  nno«  w     a  njn 
,nno  way 

,nre&ni  niYayn  WJMD*  7nnn 
rsnvte»  n^yrn  nnan  ni^yo  ,DTD  w  nn 
p^r6  wsos  on 

nyf  nn«  "nnnpni  nipvnn  nnon  njpr  «sni  noann 
10 


mno  "wan    nann     i^V?  wni  niann  aw  »ruiann  mat 

:  "OTjaatp  w  i*?«  isn  nan  nr  »8nvnsnBi  ,17anp 
nta  tysi"i»n  p'rnm  ,na^>  "iniynttn  p^»n^>  IKSD^  nnon 
15  2oniTnta  ,n«e  man  p^nn  nt  n^j»i  ,"niv«on  pbrb  &®&  pn  ^SN  pyn 


reads  K&mDp1  bezwingen,  but  in  the  later  one  (p.  9,  n.  2),  on  evidence  of 
Berlin  Codex,  reads  as  does  Poc.'s  corrected  text.  Scheyer  (ibid.,  p.  103, 
note)  suggests  M&mttp1  leiten,  and  Rosin  (p.  54,  n.  4)  Dyrurft  lenken,  instead 
of  DBJfloX  but  both  revisions  are  untenable  and  unnecessary.  Instead  of 

20  leiten  (Scheyer,  p.  103,  line  1)  and  lenken  (Ho.,  p.  54,  line  15)  it  would  be 
well  to  read  beschranken,  or  its  equivalent.  Wolff  (p.  9,  n.  2)  finds  fault  with 
I.  T.'s  translation  DttPDb,  but  without  ground.  'Vj?  ixp=£o  shorten,  curtail, 
restrict  or  confine  a  thing  to,  which  idea  is  expressed  in  DBJflo!?. 

i  Br  >  n^«n.        2  So  -f-  nn^>  mrrp&n  r6wan.        3  Ar.  HTTI  "perplexity, 

25  confusion,  uncertainty".     Cf.  Ar.  title  of  the  Moreh  VVKn^N  rft«!n.        4  Ma 

>  ]3  DX  5  Ar.  rrnt  *x-\  n«pn»«  IK  no«s  ••xn  nNpnv«  anna  "in  so  far  as  one 
believes  a  false  or  a  true  article  of  faith  (dogma)".  See  Kaufmann  to 
Ouzari,  I,  13  (>>^3  >l£X&\  V^);  Holzer,  Einleitung  zu  Chelek,  p.  24,  n.  5 
(nxnxpTOK'jN  \0  !?1S«  ^  =  nuiD«n  ]D  D-'lppa,  Prinzipien  der  Dogmeri). 

30  «  Ar.  may  \s  nista  bsy  DD«  ==  map  i«  mso  mt?j>  D»,  Scheyer,  ife^d.,  p.  103, 
note;  Eo.,  p.  56,  n.  1.  Mss.  and  edd.  >  Hit??.  I.  T.  did  not  translate  *7bV. 
^  So  nb>«n.  8  So  nr^3»n.  9  So  nin^ns  Ma  nrn^ns.  10  Br  So 

mb»D.  11  Br  Ma  mpnini  nmpn.  12  Ma  U&B  batsn.  13  Ar. 

Nri  ^srr.    Br  133  N5MS3n.  »*  Ma  >  »3B3.  is  Late  Talmud  edd. 

35  njisnn  mat.    In  c.  VIII,  the  opposite  is  niunn  pnni  naann  BI»S»I.       "  «ini 

wan^l  =  Ar.  *vhx   hv   Din   finw    Kim.    ^jA*   t/*-*^-  deviner,  decouvrir 

par  voie  de  conjecture,  Dozy.  "Qin  !?J?  nittj?^  "to  understand  a  thing";  cf. 
Y.  Shekalim,  I,  45  d  '21  to  'S1K  !?»  llti^  'jlD'1  nns  ]W  "you  cannot  understand 
the  nature  of"  etc.  "  Ar.  «nii  ynp  =  nx»  anp.  is  So 

40  19  Ma  D36n  IK  I^K  ^ii^  nan  nt  So  oasn  IN  I^>N  -ma  nt»on  nan  m.         20 
Ma  nwnn. 


plan 


mjnm  nnwn  nn&n 


rose*  DI»«  nnuin  nra&m  nwayrw 
to  fir  D'p^nn  £«  3<ot!Oi  ,1:6  "niynen  p^nm  Bunen  ptoin  Kim 

nrae  PK  nenen  ptoi 
tor  «^  ,5^D  wye 
n«nn  «Sn  ,'nn«  n^iyso  naye^  IK  orwye  hvnb  5 


i  Thus  Br.  =  Ar.  'SN1>D  '6  "concerning  the  disobediences  of".  Add.  27070 
(Brit.  Mus.)  mm  Br.  n»Mg.  Add.  27070  marg-  Ma  So  Mi  edd.  T»3. 
"Wolff  (AZDJ,  1902,  p.  576)  suggested  that  by  changing  the  Ar.  <SMMi  to 
S3K»B  it  would  agree  with  the  Hebrew  ^JJD.  This  suggestion  he  himself, 
however,  gave  up,  since  he  found  the  reading  'XNJH3  in  the  Berlin  Codex.  10 
see  Wo.,  p.  9,  n.  1.  As  Wolff  points  out,  SS«J>B  fits  the  context,  since  the 
chapter  deals  with  transgressions.  Rosin  (Ethik,  p.  54,  n.  2),  with  Scheyer 
(Das  psychol.  Syst.  d.  Maim..,  p.  102,  note),  on  the  basis  of  the  Ar.,  offers 
rvnaw  instead  of  ^vao.  The  reading  wnM  is  to  be  preferred,  however,  as  it 
has  Ms.  substantiation.  I.  T.  translated  ^KVD  now  by  TPQS  and  now  by  '10.  15 
See  chap.  VIII  (Wo.  p.  31,  line  22)  rPSSB^M  Hwt&ta  10K  ]b  =  nwon  ]s3yB 
nnajn,  and  (Wo.  p.  31,  line  24)  frcy&taa  mp  nW»  )«  =  noa  nitJ11  n»nt?, 
Rosin  (ibid.)  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  word  njJHW  has  fallen  out  of  the 
Ar.  text  after  <XK«a  'B,  and  suggests  that  the  title  should  read:  WOP3 
'31  »B3ii  nina^  1»«  nilSOl.  Scheyer  (ibid.,  p.  102*)  suggests  as  the  title  ttTOSS  20 
mn"nsni  rtbv&n  iHse11  n!?nn  n  n»«  p^»nn  WTM  »san  mns.  If  a  part  of  the 
title  has  been  lost,  this  happened  before  I.  T.  translated.  *  I.  T.  >  Ar. 
«bl«  =  r6nn  (see  preceding  note,  end),  which  Mss.  and  edd.  omit.  Ma  has  1^  IK 
after  13,  but  this  is  probably  a  variant  of  12.  3  Mi  ^BO.  4  Ar.  NDiTB 
=  DiTMW.  5  Br  Ma  b!?3  .  .  .  .  ^KW  =  Ar.  KOiT'B  IKVON^KI  *VCbh  D^  n«  25 

nan  has.  Ma  in«^.  So  bhs  n»x«3  «bi  nn-'iWD  (Mi  int6)  into  HTWI  TOT  ]s«». 
s  Ma  imjn.  7  Mss.  and  edd.  nn«  n^WBfi  DBj>Dl?  =  Ar.  «o  ^>»a  ^s>  KBmxp', 
Poc.  «»n^SB  ^»  S0nn«p<1,  but  in  the  Errata  corrects  to  the  proper  reading 
of  which  Rosin  and  Wolff  were  unaware.  In  his  first  edition  (1863),  Wolff 


13  «  pna  D'piB 

SN  T»B«  OKI  >6  DK  ainwj^  IPSK  DM 


5  , 


10 


HST  TON  njn 
:n»jw  7"B 
no  TIJPBP  m 


na 

rrnn 

«* 

^»v 
nra 


nt 


ITTttQ 


»  So  >  vwj^  I-WT  n»«  n»a.          2  Ma  >  inw»^>  wan  DK. 
V«  1W»j?^.    Ma  DM  for  T-M.  *  Ar.  W  ]K  Ma  npiW, 

«  Ma  So  .Tp^ni.          '  Br  So  jmn.          8  Br  ViT.    Br  So  + 
15  n«npnD«^K  "readiness,  ability,  aptitude".  10  Ma  10K. 

12  Ma  mwn.  13  Ma  m«g.  aie  »h  .  .  .  Vn. 

Ar.  ^pj>S«i.    Br  te»n  TOi.     Ma  nisrp.     So  nwnni 


s  So  I^BH 

Ma  >  nnMH. 

.  «  Ar. 

»«  Ma  So 

>«  Br 

edd. 


See  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  pp.  444,  n.  126,  and  446,  n.  129. 
Scheyer   (Psychol.  Syst.   d.   Maim.,   p.  66*)   suggests    D^aiwn    or 
20  »«  I.  T.  >  Ar.  Ti  ^Dl,  Wo.  ttwd  wie  sie  beschaffen  sind.  "  Br 

is  Mi  im  nsna».          w  Ma  marg.  «i,-n.          2°  Ma  >  vn\ 


«  pIB  D'plB  nJ10»  12 

way  aw  nan  ^TW  iyT  Nbi  ,^B«  nena  b  ^  ,a,wn^  D-IK  *aa 

j  lanart?  iaa  ,yaaa  WIIK*BP 

IK  3nn«  "ir6  m«n  appiw  ia  -IPK  nan  Kin  vnynan  pVnni 
,5iaaa  nnnani  wn  n^pa  *nitoyfin  p  KW  nan  ntai  ,IHDKB' 
,miaam  nnsni  ,pnm  oyani  ,iaaa  .'pmnni  nn«  nan   snvnai  s 
,D*Btean  anpan  i^«a  nanni  ,n«itrm  nanKm  ^niaennni  nnoKm 
^owy^aa  ^i  nann  nrrp1?  ^  Tn  naa  ,9«)ian  na'K  to  nman  ^K  ^ai 
IK  "naann^  abn  nai  ,m«nn  ty  )svn  nai  ,na^nn  ^y  ^ann  nai 
n6  o^a  "DiTninai  on  onnoam  n^Kian  *)ian  na^K  n«{y  pi  ,»KT^ 

tTnynen  nan  10 

,»^a^  n  i»K  m«^  Ks»an  nan  Ki 
p  n«am  naiaen  p  ^na^  iai  ,meann 

/avy  pai  /»ya  "pa  ni^iysn 
yr  ia  ntyK  Kin  wyni  /a»na  iaaai 

f«ify  p»  na  ^y  15 
ona^  ia  *MK  nan  Kin 
nan  Kin 


i  Ma  m  ^3.  2  Ma  n  pin»\    So  «\1D3M  ppvw  u.          3  Ma  Mi  nnt«. 

Ar.  «B  n»V  "to  something".  *  Ar.  ^»«PB«b«  p  TW  nipb«  rnn  pi  "from 

this    faculty   result  the  (following)  actions".    Br  1«"2\    So  ^>«  for  p.    Mi  20 
s  1100  . .  n»pa  =  Ar.  nn^Ki  2bbV«.  «  So  nn^-ai  Mi  mar«- 

'  Br  pnirn  i«.  »  Ma  maonii.  »  «)wn  . . .  ^31  =  Ar. 

KSJ>K  SJ^Oi  *1p^8  rnn  ril^NI  "and  the  instruments  of  these  faculties  are 
all  the  limbs  of  the  body".    Br  *yiin  *13'M  (a  superlinear)  ^33  WrOH  1^8  ^31 
So  »jun  Hi3«  bs  nsn  nt  ^31;  Ma  *pan  ^2«  ^3  nsn  mnsn  I^»K  nt  ^31  combines  25 
the  two  readings.  Wo.,  p.  90,  note  to  line  5  from  bottom,  emends  Ar.  Mpbtf 
to  sing.  nip^W,  but  Br  and  Ma  point  to  the  pluraL  Wo.'s  emended  reading 
agrees   with   So.    The   word   niro  "powers"  is  used  here  by  M.  possibly 
instead   of  m^1J>D   "actions",   the  meaning  he  wishes  to  convey  being  that 
the   limbs   of  the  whole  body  are  the  instruments  of  the  actions  of  the  30 
psychic  qualities  just  mentioned. 

»o  Ma  So  13T  for  I3in.    TTO\IJ  . .  by  =  Ar.  »&3^H  rfhy.         ll  Ma  Mirk. 

12  So  in&n  ran  rvrab.          ^  Mi  m»rs-  +  obis  edd.  D'-Vs  0^3. 

i*  Ma  So  H31,         »»  Ma  So  W^n»nn,         »s  ^no  partitive,  "some". 

17  ruffno  n3K^»o=  Ar.^no.  35 

««  vto  ]n»  no  to  =  Ar.  •T'to  --n  no  '•to  "as  they  really  are".    Cf.  HUb., 
p.  421.  Br.  »£>3  for  to. 

19  Ar.  pt6tDK3  "general  or  absolute  acceptance  of  a  word".  Jo  Ar. 

"inp-1  pass.    So  no^  Ma  m«n  TID!?\        21  Ma  >  nnjis.        22  Br  mon^oni. 
"  So  new  1313  m«n  tonar  13  n»«  nan  Kin.  40 


11 


K  pis  D'piB 


nni  T&n 


anc  HOT   2n*na  inn  nfca 
nt  arep 


nra 


5  ,9nunn  ,s)i»nn    w  mooiiBen  rwonn  'ronan  wao  t^an&n 
Vaa 


i  aien 


nnsp  te  onsp 


10 


2  7 


15 


nonai  , 
nan 

naiaon 
ant?  , 


nt 


nami 


nmp 
« 
6 
711 


i  Better,  WV  nt»1  =  Ar. 
"by  what  means  they  work". 
nn»  K^tti.         *  Ma  one  noi 
20  Ar.  ac^N  nr«3sV.    Br  nunsnn 


K021,   not  "what"   the  faculties  do,  but 
2  So  rbto  inn  n«13  ini\  3  So  Hftl 

ono  noi.         s  Br  im^.        s  Thus  Ma. 
So  n«isin  ns«!?JD3.  '  Ma  mm. 


s  Ar.  iirmi^K  nas  nnntws^K.  n«ninisn3^«  =  ra  Mo^a  =  mooiiBtsn.  See  Millot 
ha-Higgayon,  c.  VIII;  Munk.  Guide,  I,  p.  39,  n.  1;  Scheyer,  Das  Psychol. 
Syst.  d.  Maim.,  pp.  22—23.  So  D'fiDn&on.  9  So  rttnn  on.  10  Ma 

antWDni.          "  Br  ntna. 
25      12  Ma  +  D»i2  n»a  ro^a  ^33  wa  !?sa  IK  via^e  inxa  waaa  top' 


originally  a  marginal  gloss.  «  Mi  mnsn.     Ma  +  niKin  DH» 

oytsni  vawnv  i*  Mi  nnnDn.  »  Mi  >  nsn.          «  Ma  isrn. 

Ar.  nNDIDHD^K  moi  "trace,  impression".        is  Ar.  Knwa  "their  absence". 


30      is  Dnjnnn  .  .  .  ii3P  i»«  misplaced  in  So  after  DTyyn  ]»  nsn  nt  3'3T  mbi. 
20  Ma  3"31TI1  Da'»n.    Ar.  33ina  "to  combine,  to  compose". 
Ji  Ma  TlBni.     The  fern,  forms  of  the  verbs  probably  go  back  to  I.  T. 
to  agree  with  Ar.    But  see  Introduction,  p.  26. 

22  Ma  n'avton  p.  23  Ma  Dr»n.  2*  Mi  w»  D».  J5  Br 

35  omT  «V»  So  Da"»«  «^.  26  Thus  Br;  Ar.  <iin.    So  ynn  Ma  tswn 

"float".        27  Ar.  ^y  (sing.);  So  D'».         2^  Ar.  nKWnDtt^N  "impossibilities". 

2«  Ar.  miiril  "invent".         so  Ar.  ]lt^3nt&K  "the  Mutakattimun"  .         31  So 

nwe.  32  Ma  nauon  ^nan.  33  So  wsni.    Poc.  ioni«  i«  iai;  Wo. 

(p.  90,  note  to  p.  3.  line   17,  not  7)  unnecessarily  emends  to  Nlfimtfl  NUB. 

40  Ar.  Dm  IV  "to  make  anyone  form  an  opinion  about"  (3Wflb  «'3n).  Of.  Fried- 

laender,  Sprachgebrauch,  sub  voce. 


pis  nyis 

pi  , 
DT*O  T 
twnnn  «in  'an  nn 

nt 


]tn 


nt 
ntwin  ^is  p 


m 


:p 
nts 
15rnt 


ana 


nt  pm  , 


nnnm  , 


n» 


10 


10 


15 


i  AT.  DDi6N  *]K=iTO8S  "homonym".    On  ^^i,  see  Munk,  GrwitZe,  I,  pp.  133, 
n.  3;  239,  n.  1;  262,  n.  3,  and  Kaufmann,  Attributenlehre,  pp.  460,  n.  148,  20 
and  461,  n.  149.  2  So  DM'OJNP  t6l;  some  edd.  -f-  0^123.     y»,  here  like 

Ar.  '»e  "meaning".  3  n^n  b»21  "animal"  =  Ar.  J«w6«1.    So  1«W1 

n^n  ^w  Ma  n^nn  toai.  *  So  n^iinn  «\n  m«n  f»n  n»«  n»jinn  nHnn»  t6. 
5  o^n  ^w  n«»a  =  Ar.  ]«vn*?«  "B.  Br  So  ^M.  6  So  nwnnn.  7  Ar. 
S>1i^>«  "class,  species,  kind".  8  nn«  WBi  1^>  W  "has  a  soul  peculiar  25 

to  itself".  9  in«n  t?ai  ^nte  ==  Ar.  n5Nb«  osa  TJ.  10  So  n^s. 

11  So  aww.  12  Ma  D»  on».  "  Ma  >  ono.  »«  So  mt. 

«  Ar.  vhti.    Br  nT«n  Ma  T«n.  i«  Ar.  nsK^to  =  nn«ni.  "  Ar. 

iiHiD  ,TB  inc.  is  Ma  rum.  i»  So  rmonn.  >o  So  Ma  win. 

2»  Codd.  71  1161  -iDnn.     See  swpra,  p.  9  n.  9.  **  Cod.  71  nntwin  cod.  30 

1161  lenn.  »  So  mJ.  24  Ar.  HTW&  "which  is  common  to  them". 

2  s  So  ^n»a.  26  Ma  ^3.  27  Br.  n3.  28  So  +  m«  133. 

29  Ma  n^SD^Bnttno  edd.  D^Bioi^BnD.  Ar.  •pBD^Bne^N  \o  "of  the  philo- 
sophists";  Wo.,  p.  4,  n.  1,  Philosophanten.  D^BD^BDD  coined  by  I.  T.,  based 
on  Ar.  tp^BflD,  see  HUb,  p.  419.  35 

so  Ma  WWM.  si  Ar.  n«»«a»  "absurdities".  32  So  nviDSi  for  ^3 
niTPttK.  33  So  Ma  Tiais.  34  Some  edd.  ns.  35  So  nans. 

36  Ar.  B«^>3«  =  r\\rb,  |NDJK!?«  is«^5«  "the  humours  of  the  body".  37  Thus 
Br.  Ar.  h\vr\  T\n.  So  edd.  w\w  Ma  BT'iBnw.  38  Ma  +  Kin. 


pis  D'pna 


ro  ^  ,m«n  &&>in  pn 

]?n  p^ni  pw  cn^n  '3  ,7Diom  ••nenn  u  pw  pnsn  sro 
,mi»nn  pen  p  )tn  pte  pw  nianni  ,rwij« 
pw  ^an  ty  new  DJDKI  ,r6  T»«  pesn  p  jm  ptoo  pw 


5       i  Thus  Br  So  Ma  =  Ar.  in  KfcJN;  edd.  Dm     See  Introduction,  p.  25 
(bottom).  »  Ar.  nnit6«  =  tnruN^K.  3  (Ma  DIK)  m«n  12  jin*  = 

Ar.  jKDitM  H^M.         *  So  >  ^»»  TIT  hv.         »  So  nas.        e  menn  ia  |n<» 
=  Ar.  -many?  *i^«.  7  So  -nonrn  Dion.          «  So  +  iV  IBM.          »  Ma 

marg.  (i»ter  hand)  Cod.  71  (Parma)  iiwvtt  =  Ar.  nS5lb«l.  Br  So  Mi  Ma  codd. 
10  (Parma)  46  261  378  438  802  959  1246  1262  edd.  1»Jm  "and  the  eagle".  Ma 
may  have  been  corrected  by  comparison  with  some  other  Heb.  text,  but 
hardly  with  the  Arabic.  Cod.  1161,  which  will  be  referred  to  below,  is 
defective  here.  Since  a  palm  is  nourished  by  a  nutritive  faculty  (]tn  pVn), 
it  was  proper  for  M.  to  use  H^M^W.  Later,  (p.  10,  lines  10 — 12)  in  speaking  of 

15  the  faculty  of  sensation  (nBOin  b»B)  of  the  various  species,  M.  refers  to  that 
of  the  eagle  (Ar.  2SpJ^K).  All  Heb.  Mss.  and  texts,  except  codd.  71  and 
1161,  have  correctly  ntwn.  Codd.  71  and  1161  read  itsnn.  Thus,  in  describ- 
ing the  nutritive  faculty  of  the  different  species,  the  Ar.  refers  to  that  of 
man,  the  ass,  and  the  palm,  while  in  discussing  the  faculty  of  sensation 

20  it  speaks  of  man,  the  ass,  and  the  eagle.  Ma  with  its  marginal  reading, 
alone,  agrees  with  the  Ar.  The  texts  which  read  ~\V17V\  in  the  first  instance 
have  itwn  in  the  second,  while  cod.  71  has  nann  in  both  cases.  This  con- 
sistency in  the  Heb.  texts  is  suspicious.  The  Ar.,  cod.  71,  and  Ma  m»rg-, 
no  doubt  retain  correctly  the  first  list  of  species,  namely,  man,  ass,  and 

25  the  palm,  and  it  can  safely  be  said  that  I.  T.  translated  accordingly. 
The  present  condition  of  the  Heb.  texts  arose,  perhaps,  from  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  original  I.  T.  version.  Some  copyist,  thinking  prob- 
ably that  the  same  word  should  be  used  in  both  places,  must  have  changed 
iDnm  to  agree  with  the  later  occurring  IBttn.  Another  copyist,  thinking 

30  that  IBttn  in  the  second  instance  was  an  error,  changed  this  to  IBnn  (codd. 
71,  1161).  That  M.  need  not  have  used  the  same  list  of  species  in  both 
instances  is  apparent  from  the  context.  First  of  all,  he  speaks  of  each 
species  as  having  a  nutritive  faculty  (]tn  D3)  peculiar  to  itself,  and  states 
that  this  faculty  of  man  differs  from  that  of  the  ass  and  the  horse,  the 

35  two  latter  representing  one  species.  Then,  discussing  the  nutritive  faculty, 
he  illustrates  from  human,  animal,  and  plant  life,  saying  that  the  nutritive 
faculty  which  nourishes  man  differs  from  that  which  nourishes  the  ass, 
and  both  from  that  which  nourishes  the  palm.  Later,  however,  no  longer 
speaking  of  the  nutritive  faculty  but  of  the  faculty  of  sensation,  M.  very 

40  properly  avoids  referring  to  the  palm  as  being  endowed  with  such  a  faculty. 
Instead  he  uses  the  eagle  (3«pJ>b«)  as  an  illustration.  Thus,  M.  may  well 
have  used  two  different  illustrations,  one  from  plant  life,  and  the  other 
from  animal  life. 


pawn 


jn 

5  mm  nwfii  4m*6  »s»  nt  TOJD  aatfrn  ,JWBJ  nnn  n^iyan  mp 
nrrns 


nn 

nn  ^2«  ,niswn  p^nna  np^»nn»  jorw  ^b 
onn  "D^pnno  lainon  ^  IOD^^HD  tysin  »^^  taw 

12nnan    i^n^  ^v  nnsi 


'n  ,nn  na  i«rpm  i     10 
p  ,on 

nsnm 

nnw 

nn  23B>sn  '•p^n^  IOIK  nr  ^SDI 
nn  ^uoin  *mi     a»m  "niynom  n»i»ni  »^iem  15 


»  So  >  »B3.  »  Thus  Br  Ma  Mi  =  Ar.  'Bon,  with  phrase  JYl^»Bn  mp 

Dnn  as  subject.    So  and  edd.  DlJOp^ ;  cf.  "Wo.,  p.  1.  no.  1.         3  So  and  edd. 
awm.  «  Ma  +  i1?.          s  Br  nm.  6  IIBD  . . .  IP  =  Ar.  ins^  ••nn 

DnD«l.    For  clearness,   I.  T.  has  D^KBlin   »«n  instead  of  Dtftn  (Ar.  DnD^I). 
'  See  Munk,  'Melanges,  p.  40,  n.  3;  p.  54,  n.  2.  8  Ar.  NnbtMmD11  "make  20 

use  of,  employ".    For  n»J>  in  this  sense,  see  I  Sam.,  VIII.  16, 
"and  he  made  use  (of  them)  for  his  work".  »  So  ^D.  10  So 

n^m.  »i  So  Ma  D'-pbno.  »a  nnan  yipTi  =  Ar. 

is  So  Ma  ton.  »*  Ma  KSnn.          «  Ma  on  marg.          "  Ar. 

=  «jiin  ^ni.          '7  So  TUMP.         «  Ma  >  onm in^rv.    nfi^i  (some  25 

edd.  llfien)  pass.  =  Ar.  SiniriB  "so  that  they  should  be  averted".         t9  Ar. 
DB3^«  3B11  '•'ib«  ^^^5  "likewise  he  who  cures  the  soul".  2°  So  edd.  nnD 

onxn.  2>  So  rrmnsi.  22  Br  nbb.  »  So  »BJ.          J1  Ma  on 

pun  n»en.          «  So  noisn  «ini.    See  Introduction,  p.  26.          J5  So  uiKi 

30 


n« 


10 


5  npi  ,ITB 
naan  K^       DSI 


rto 

,mpn  p 

n^»  jsi 

inn  •}« 


DD« 
.TSI  ,D 


rn 


nan 


m 


ISDO 
,yn  nt 


Kinn 


nm 


mn 


15 


Ma 


So  M3W^a    nttWI.  2  So  +  ^fi».  3  So  «)"»«»  Ma 

*  Ma  WS^K,  but  corrected  by  later  (?)  hand.  &  Ma  13  y* 

rby\n.  6  Br  n\T».  7  Br  So  +  pnat.  s  So  pn  ib  Ma  ^n. 

»  So  vn.  10  Br  Ma  ^&fc.  "  Ma  DnWMn  DW.  «  Ar.  "since  it 

is   my   intention   that  profit  should  be  realized  for  the  reader."    Br  Ma 
20  N-npn  Hv6  vuw»  So  «iip^>  n^inn  ne!?!?  viiow.       «3Br  So 
Mi 


rnsTpn 
jraa 


ye 


*wia    toaa    ^K    rnia 
iron  i^fa  ,,Tp'pn 
ipi  , 


name 

TO    ,  maite    Ti  niTDnte  pis 

nrron  itep 

p  ns  nps  ,enpn  nn 

•rin 


ta 


Taa 


p 


TIX^  «D  -si  ,?is£5«  n-n  SB 
«nmana«  y«ii«  in  D^  mob*  p 


p 
« 

pi  ,)s 


pa 


p 


mi 


p 


2na  5 


nrrona 
nwaan 
"i«ann  nan  ,enipn  nn  ^  n^aa  10 


nann 
p"?n  14 


t^nnana  15 


mip    a^ 

na^n  na^n 


Bna 
p 


nana  Q^ntDp   D^ap  an 
f  anniana  2'wbw  iio^nni  niamaa  25 

p  aa  B^BiD^sn 
nain  anianai  , 
saa  na«n 


i  Br  So  Wbtob.              2  So  ma.  »  So  Ma  h"r\             «  Ma  'iribV.  30 

s  So  'bba  p>^.         s  Ma  +  "inv.  7  Ma  D«  '3.          »  So  +  V'n.         9  Ma 

So  dvpa».        10  So  nb«b.  n  So  Kan.        12  Ma  innbK.       13  So 

i*  Br  So  >  hy.  i»  So  +  nwen.           i«  Br  So  >  ns^n. 

So  ifiTi.       is  So  nnBbi  «a».  19  Ma  IDS.       20  Ma  i«a^.       21  Br  i»« 

Ma  4-  ^V  So  IDI«  i»«.  22  Ma  +  ona.        23  So  "ma»  nnai.  35 

Mi  D"b3n.         27  So  nnbw.  28  Ar.  onp^K.         29  Ma  »a.        20  Ma 


-TO 

narp  jnN  j  *ib*  ssob*  «» 
,VID^K  Kin  *  «nDDD^«  nnn 
•Tina  riyBai^K  tt& 
5  «o  -"B  rttna  Krrjn  npi 
Djom  tufcta  *ptonto  *nn  p  mpn 
,H*TBB  ^>«"ii«  *B  Brooch  rrin  * 


10 


nt 


iii«a  nan 


na 


p  oa  won  ,*non  nta  «roofin 
n^yinn  nn 
noa 


mp  na 


no 


1  Since  the  Arabic  of  M.'s  foreword  is  inaccessible,  being  found  only 
in  the  Mss.  and  in  Pococke's  Porta  Mosis,  the  editor  has  deemed  it 
advisable  to  reproduce  it  here.  The  text  is  that  of  the  Porta  Mosis,  pp.  181 
— 183.  The  Hebrew  is  found  in  the  editions  of  the  Peralcim  by  Hurwitz, 
15  and  Slucki,  and  a  Latin  translation  in  Suhrenhusius'  Mishnah,  Pt.  IV, 
p.  393;  see  supra,  Introduction,  pp.  31,  33. 

»  Thus  Ma.  Br  V't  p«&  "i  sin  p  WD  i3"3i  hnm  ain  ne«  So  Tin  ION 

V'2»  lanen.    Of.  the  introductory  phrase  of  M.'s  Introduction  to  the  Moreh: 

»"j  mirr  Ta  f'v  «IDV  "i  aiwnn  T'e^nn  wvbrb  nan»n  ann  ana.  I.  T.  translated 

20  the  Perakim  in  1202  (see  supra,  Introduction,  p.  10)  while  M.  was  yet  alive. 

Therefore,  in  referring  to  M.,  he  could  not  have  used  the  abbreviation  h"\ 

or  *>"».    See  HUb.,  p.  438.    |»"»  =  n«  ^nnfitf  "may  his  Rock  protect  him", 

preterite  for  optative;  see  Munk,   Guide,  I,  p.  3,  n.  4;   idem,  Notice  sur 

Joseph  ben-Jehouda,  Paris,  1842,  p.  69,  n.  2.     Fiirstenthal,  Moreh  I,  p.  2 

25  has,  incorrectly,  Gemeindevorsanger  (=Tias  rfhv). 

»  Ma  r6nro,  nnviB  =  Ar.  "ns  "introduction,  prolegomenon".  M.  uses 
this  word  to  designate  his  introduction  to  the  Moreh.  See  Munk,  Guide,  I, 
p.  3,  n.  1,  and  idem,  Notice,  p.  23,  and  26. 

«  The  man  #or  excellence  is  M.'s  Mishneh  Torah.    Of.  Munk,  ifoU,  p.  23, 
30  and  28.        B  Br  rby\r\  Ma  n\hy\r\.        «  Ma  >  mann  m&  D^W  noa.        '  So 
n-nai.          8  Ma  n^>pi.          »  Ma  Mi  wwto.          »°  Br  n^iai?;  So  n 
a»  na 


mn 


p 


nn 


p« 


ay 


p 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


30112004374135 


